LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




000CH475345 

V, 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



THE SECOND DEATH 
RICHARD WHATELEY 

ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL? 

THE INTERMEDIATE STATE ffl 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD ffl #5 

RICH MAND AND LAZARUS 
GEORGE STORRS 

CAN YOU BELIEVE? 
W GLEN MONCRIEFF 

UNITY OF MAN OR LIFE AND 
DEATH REALITIES 

THE TWO THRONES 

THE TRUE SOURCE OF LIVE 
GEORGE STORRS 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

BT 930 
,S8 
1850 



AN INQUIRY: 

RE THE WICKED IMMORTAL ? 

IN 

SIX SIRMONS. 

ALSO, 

fyavz t\)t Decr& H n a xd I £ g e ? 

BY 

GEORGE STORES. 

TO WHICH IS PREFIXED AN EXTRACT 

ON 'THE SECOND DEATH.' 

BY 

ARCHBISHOP WHATELY. 



PHILADELPHIA : 
PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, 
1850. 



Entered according to the Act of Congress in the year 1848, b; 

George Storrs, 

Is the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Eastern Dist: 
of Pennsylvania. 



i 



IN EXCH 



THE SECOND DEATH. 



By Richard Whately, D. D., Archbishop 
of Dublin. 

4 Many of the ancient Fathers look upon the (expulsion of 
Adam from Eden) as a merciful dispensation, that man might 

NOT BE PERPETUATED IN A STATE OF SIN. ' Bishop PATRICK. 

4 Whatsoever had a beginning can also have an ending, and it 
shall die, unless it be daily watered from the streams flowing 
from the fountain of life, and refreshed with the dew of hea- 
ven, and the wells of God : and tn ere fore God had prepared a 
tree in Paradise to have supported Adam in his artificial immor- 
tality : immortality was not in his nature, but in the hands and 
parts, in the favor and super-additions of God. Bishop Jeremy 
Taylor. 

We know that in this present world there is evil as 
well as good, whether in the next w T orid there will he 
an end put to all evil is a question on which scripture, 
if we look to that alone, gives us only this slight hint ; 
that we are told (by Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 25) that Christ 
4 must reign till He hath put all things under his feet ; 
and 'that 4 the last enemy that shall be destroyed is 
death.' And this does not seem consistent with the 
continuance forever of a number of wicked beings, alive, 
and hating Christ, and odious in his sight. 

The Scriptures do not, I think, afford us any grounds 
for expecting that those who shall be condemned at the 
last day as having wilmlly rejected or rebelled against 
their Lord, will be finally delivered ; that their doom, and 
that of the evil Angels will ever be reversed. 

What that doom will be — whether the terms in 
which it is commonly spoken of in Scripture ( 4 death,' 
4 destruction^ 4 perishing ,' etc, ) are to be understood 
figuratively, as denoting immortal life in a state of 
misery, or more literally, as denoting a final extinction 
of existence — this is quite a different question. It is 
certain that the words 4 life,' 4 eternal life,' 4 immor 
tality, etc., are always applied to the condition of 



ii 



SECOND DEATH. 



those, and of those only, who shall at the last day be 
approved as ( good and faithful servants/ who are to 
* enter into the joy of their Lord 

( Life,' as applied to their condition, is usually un- 
derstood to mean 'happy life.' And that theirs will 
be a happy life, we are indeed plainly taught ; but I 
do not think we are anywhere taught that the word 
'life* does of itself necessarily imply happiness . If 
so, indeed, it would be a mere tautology to speak of a 
4 happy life ;' and a contradictionXo speak of a 6 misera- 
ble life ;' which we know is not the case, according to 
the usage of any language. In all Ages and Countries, 
6 life, 5 and the words answering to it in other langua- 
ges, have always been applied, in ordinary discourse to 
B wretched life, no less properly than to a happy one. 
L : fe, therefore, in the received sense of the word, 
would apply equally to the condition of the blest and 
the condemned, supposing these last to be destined to 
continue forever living in a state of misery. And yet, 
to their condition the words 6 life' and c immortality' 
never are applied in Scripture, If therefore we sup- 
pose the hearers of Jesus and his Apostles to have 
understood, as nearly as possible in the ordinary sense,, 
the words employed, they must naturally have con- 
ceived them to mean (if they were taught nothing to 
the contrary) that the condemned were really and liter- 
ally to be 'destroyed/ and cease to exist; not that 
they were to exist forever in a state of wretchedness. 
For they are never spoken of as being kept alive, but 
as forfeiting life : as for instance, ' Ye will not come 
unto me that ye may have life :' — c He that hath the 
Son hath life ; and he that hath not the Son of God, 
hath not life.' And again, 'perdition? c death? 6 destruc- 
tion? are employed in numerous passages to express 
ihe doom of the condemned. Ail which expressions 
would, as I have said, be naturally taken in their usual 
and obvious sense, if nothing were taught to the con- 
trary. 

That these expressions however are to be understood 
not in their ordinary sense, but figuratively, to signify 
an immortality of suffering, is inferred, by a large 
proportion of Christians from some other passages : as 
where our Lord speaks of c everlasting punishment,' 



BY BISHOP WHATELY. 



iii 



< everlasting fire/ and of being < cast into Hell, where 
their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 5 * 

From such passages as these it has V»een inferred 
that the sufferings, and consequently the life, of the 
condemned is never to end. And the expressions 
would certainly bear that sense, if these were the 
only ones on the subject that are to be found, in Scrip- 
ture. But they will also bear another sense; which if 
not more probable in itself, is certainly more reconcila- 
ble with the ordinary meaning of the words ( destruc- 
tion? etc. which so often occur. The expressions of 
' eternal punishment, 5 6 unquenchable fire, 5 etc. may 
mean merely that there is to be no deliverance — no 
revival — no restoration of the condemned. i Death 5 
simply does not shut out the hope of being brought to 
life again : c eternal death 5 does. 6 Fire 5 may be 
quenched before it has entirely consumed what it is 
burning: e unquenchable fire 5 would seem most natur- 
ally to mean that which destroys it utterly. 

It may be said, indeed, that supposing Man's soul to 
be an immaterial Being, it cannot be consumed and 
destroyed by literal material fixe or worms. That is 
true : but no more can it suffer from these. We ail 
know that no fire, literally so called, can give us any 
pain unless it reach our bodies. The 'fire, 5 therefore 5 
and the 6 worm 5 that are spoken of, must at any rate, it 
would seem, be something figuratively so-called — 
something that is to the soul what worms and fire are 
to a body. And as the effects of worms or fire is, not 
to -preserve the body that they prey upon, but to co?i- 
sitme, destroy, and put an end to it, it would follow ', if 
the correspondence hold good, that the fire, figuratively 
so-called, which is prepared for the condemned, is 
something that is really to destroy and pat an end to 



* This last expression of his is taken from the book of the 
prophet Isaiah (Ixvi. 24,) who speaks of ' the carcases of the 
men that have transgressed; whose worm shall not die, neither 
shall their fire be quenched ; and they shall be an abhorring unto 
all [living] flesh :' describing evidently the kind of doom 
inflicted by the Eastern nations on the vilest offenders, who 
were not only slain, but their bodies deprived of the rights of 
burial, and either burned to ashes (which among them was 
regarded as a great indignity,; or left to moulder above ground 
and be devoured by worms. " 



SECOND DEATH. 



them; and is called Everlasting,' or ( unquenchable* 
fire, to denote that they are not to be saved from it, 
but that their destruction is to be final. So in the 
parable of tne tares, our Lord describes himself as say- 
ing, 6 gather ye first the tares, and bind them in bundles 
to bum them ; but gather the wheat into my garner ; as 
if to denote that the one is lo be (as we know is the prac- 
tice of the husbandman) carefully preserved, and in 
the other completely fut an end to. 

We must not, indeed, venture to conclude at once, 
from our conviction of the divine goodness and power, 
that evil will ever cease to exist, since we know not 
how to explain the existence of any evil at all. We 
can only say that there is some unknown (reason) for it ; 
and that it is a foolish presumption to think of assign- 
ing a limit to the effects of the unknown cause, except 
revelation guides us. But when we are told that 
Christ is to 6 reign till he shall have put all things 
under his feet, 5 and that c the last enemy that shall be 
destroyed is death ;' this does afford some ground for 
expecting the ultimate exti?ictio?i of evil and of suffer- 
ing, by the total destruction of such as are incapable of 
good and of happiness. If 'eternal death 5 means final 
death — death without any revival — We can understand 
what is meant by 6 Death being the last enemy destroy- 
ed,' viz. : that none henceforth are to be subjected to 
it. But if c Death' be understood to mean everlasting 
life in misery, then it would appear that Death is 
never to be destroyed at all ; since, although no one 
should be henceforth sentenced to it, it would still be 
going on as a continual i?2fiiction 3 for ever. 

On the whole, therefore, I think we are not war- 
ranted in concluding (as some have done,) so positively 
concerning this question as to make it a point of Chris- 
tian faith to interpret figuratively, and not literally, 
the c death 9 and the ( destructio?i ) spoken of in Scripture 
as the doom of the condemned ; and to insist on the be- 
lief that they are to be kept alive for ever. 

There are persons I believe, who do not like to hear 
this question spoken of as one that is left undecided by 
Scripture. Some would wish that the final extinction of 
the condemned should be positively declared, because 
they wish to believe that doctrine true \ and some 



BY BISHOP WHATELY. 



again, from thinking it a dangerous doctrine, wish to 
have the opposite one positively declared. But all such 
wishes arc quite foreign from the subject. In judging 
of the sense of Scripture, we should be careful to 
guard against the error of suffering our wishes to bias 
the mind. If, indeed, we had to devise a religion for 
ourselves, we might indulge our wishes as to what is 
desirable, or our conjectures as to what seems to us in 
itself probable, or our judgment as to what may seem 
advisable. But when we have before us i Scripture 
revelations 5 on any subject, it is for us to endeavor to 
make out what it is that Scripture teaches, and what it 
does not teach. We may wonder perhaps why Scrip- 
ture has taught us so and so, or why it has withheld 
such and such knowledge, or why it has not more dis- 
tinctly revealed this or that : but if we presume to 
interpret Scripture according to our inclinations or 
judgments, or to speak positively on points which Scrip- 
ture has left doubtful, bacause we think it advisable 
that all such doubts should be removed, it is plain that 
this is, not to make Scripture our guide, but to make 
ourselves the guide of Scripture, 

On one point, and that wilich ought to afford us the 
fullest satisfaction, we are left in no doubt. That 
6 when Christ, w r ho is our life, shall appear, we also 
(if of the number of his approved servants) shall ap- 
pear with him in glory, 5 which is to last for ever, w r e 
have the fullest assurance from Scripture. 

Ignorant, however, as the wisest must be on these 
subjects, the most ignorant of us is wise enough for his 
own purpose, if he will but seek for the knowledge of 
his duty, and use what knowledge he has. Short- 
sighted as we are, we can see by the light of God 5 s 
word that there are two paths set before us ; the ends 
which we cannot indeed distinctly see ; but we 
k low that the one leads to everlasting happiness, and 
th j other to ruin ; and that God has offered us our 
choice between them, and entreated us to take the bet- 
ter, and promised us strength to walk in it, if we will 
'strive to enter in at the straight gate. 5 



OPINIONS OF EMINENT MEN. 



Martin Lttther, in the earlier part of his life, in his 

" Defence — Proposition ,271h, 55 published 1520, says — 
" I permit the Pope to make articles of faith for him- 
self and his faithful, such as that he is Emperor of the 
world, King of heaven, and God upon earth — that the 
soul is immortal, with all those monstrous opinions to 
be found in the Roman dunghill of decretals. 5> 

Archdeacon Blackburn said, — cc The more any 
man is convinced of the immortality of the soul, from 
the principles of Aristotle or Des Cartes, the less will 
he concern himself about the gospel account of futurity. 3 ' 
Again ne says, — " All those fine spun notions of the 
immortality of the soul, and all the artificial deductions 
from that principle, teaching nothing but the art of 
blowing scholastic bubbles, which will certainly go 
peaceably to their rest, without the least detriment, 
either to sound learning or true religion.'" 5 

et Timothy Dwight, D. D., L.L. D., late President 
of Yale College," in his Sermons, Vol. 1, p. 163, says: 

6 Among Christians I know of but one [S. Drew] 
who has regarded the immortality of the soul a- suscep- 
tible of demonstration. Should we believe with this 
ingenious writer, that the soul, metaphysically con- 
sidered, is so formed, as naturally to be immortal, we 
must still acknowledge, because it cannot be denied, 
that its existence may terminate at death, or at any 
other supposable period. Whatever has been created, 
can certainly be annihilated by the power which created 
it. The continuance of the soul must, therefore, depend 
absolutely on the will of God. But that will can never 
be known by creatures, unless he is pleased to disclose 
it. Without Revelation, therefore, the immortality of 
the soul must be entirely uncertain." 

Here is sober truth expressed frankly. Now let any 
mighty man in the Scriptures give us a " Thus saith 
the Lord, the soul is immortal. 55 

Bishop Tillotson, in his Sermons, printed in 1774, 
Vol. 2, admits that " The immortality of the soul is 
rather supposed, or taken for granted, than expressly 
revealed in the Bible. 55 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



AN INQUIRY : ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL ? 
By George Storrs. 



FIRST BISOOXTHSH. 

' May we know what this new doctrine whereof thou speakest is ? Fa? 
thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know, there- 
fore, what these things mean." Acts xvii. 19, : 20. 

Paul, in preaching the gospel, came to Athens: he there 
beheld an altar inscribed "TO THE UNKNOWN GOD." 
At the idolatry he saw, his spirit was stirred within him ; 
hence he disputed daily with them that met him. He en- 
countered certain philosophers — wise men, no doubt, — at 
least in their own estimation — and some of them said : 
What will this babbler say ? Others said, he seemeth to be 
a setter forth of strange Gods. No doubt they thought he 
was a "heretic" of the blackest stamp; yet they seemed 
disposed to hear him, before they passed final sentence upon 
him. In this respect they certainly manifested a better dis- 
position than many of the present day, who are so wise in 
their own estimation, that no one can advance a thought to 
which they will listen, unless it has first passed through the 
head of some doctor of divinity. Not so with the men of 
Athens ; " strange" as the things were that the Apostle 
taught, they were desirous to know what the new doctrine 
was. 

Various errors exist among men in regard to revealed 
truth. These errors go to show how imperfect we are in 
knowledge — the mistakes committed in our education — the 
reluctance of the mind to investigate — and a want of moral 

(3) 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



courage to step aside from the track marked out by learned 
men, as they are thought to be, but who, most likely, have 
conducted their own investigations under the influence of 
the fear of being denounced as heretics, if they should be 
led to results unlike to those who are reputed for wisdom. 
But "if any man will be wise, let him become a fool that 
he may be wise," is the language of inspiration itself. 

We honour God only so far as we have right conceptions' 
of his character, government and purposes, and act in ac- 
cordance with them. If we believe God will reward, or 
punish men contrary to his own word, we dishonour him, 
however much sincerity we may possess. Truth and the 
honour of God are inseparable : and we cannot glorify our 
Heavenly Father by erroneous opinions. Yet, most pro- 
fessed christians, if pressed on the subject, can give little 
better reason for what they believe, on many points, than 
that their teachers told them so. 

It is a solemn duty to study our Bibles, and form our 
opinions of what they teach for ourselves, as we must an- 
swer for ourselves. But in this study the adoption of cor- 
rect principles of interpretation is of the first importance. 
Without this, our appeal to the word of God may only 
serve to confirm us in error. 

The plainest truths of the Bible have been wrapped in 
darkness by pretending that the language of the Scriptures 
has a mystical or secret meaning that does not appear in 
the words employed. Such a principle of interpretation is 
a libel on the Bible. That book professes to be a revelation / 
and so plain, too, that the wayfaring man can understand 
it; and the Saviour says, "If any man will do his will, he 
shall know of the doctrine.'" The language of the Bible, 
then, should be explained as the language of any other 
book, i. e. according to its plain and obvious meaning : un- 
less there is a clear necessity for departing from it. With 
these remarks I proceed to 

The Question at Issce, ok Poixt in Debate. 

The question is not, whether the soul can be immortal, 
nor whether the souls of the righteous will be immortal ; 
but — Will the wicked who live and die in their sins, con- 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL 1 



tinue eternal' j, or without end, in a state of conscious be- 
ing ? Or, once more — Is the punishment God has threatened 
to sinners an eternal state of conscious being in misery ? 
This involves the question of the immortality of the soul. 
For if'all men can be proved to be immortal, I conceive it 
clearly follows from the Bible, that the finally impenitent 
mill be punished with eternal conscious being in misery. 

The Arguments in Proof of Man's Immortality. 

These are mainly three, viz. : First—The desire all men 
feel for it. Second — That the soul is spiritual, hence in 
destructible, and therefore immortal. Third— That God 
wills it to be immortal. 

To these, perhaps, another should be added, viz. : " All 
nations and people have believed the soul immortal." To 
this last argument, I answer — There is no evidence that all 
nations and people have believed it. There is evidence to 
the contrary. In the " Dialogue on the immortality of the 
soul" — found in "Plato's Dialogues" — Socrates, having 
spoken of the nature of the soul, says — "Shall a soul of 
this nature, and created with all these advantages, be dissi- 
pated and annihilated as soon as it parts from the body, as 
most men believe . ? " Here the fact is brought out, that so 
far from its being a general belief that the soul is immortal, 
the exact reverse was true in Socrates' day. 

So far from all nations and people believing the soul im- 
mortal, there were a large class among the Jews who did 
not believe it, viz. : the Sadducees, who said, " There is no 
resurrection, neither angel nor spirit."— Hence, there is no 
truth in the argument, that all nations and people have be« 
lieved in the immortality of the soul. 

I proceed now to take up the three main arguments in 
support of the immortality of the soul. 

1. The desire all men feel for it. This argument can 
avail nothing, unless it can be proved, that what men desire 
they will possess. But men desire many things, they never 
do and never can obtain. All men desire happiness ; but 
does it, therefore, follow, that all men will be happy ! Cer- 
tainly not. So, neither does it follow, because all men desire 
immortality, that therefore, they are immortal : thai desire 
] * 



s 



BtBLE EXAMINER. 



is, without doubt, a strong principle implanted in us by the 
author of our being, to ercite us to a course of living that 
shall secure that invaluable blessing, which he designed to 
bestow upon man, if he would walk in obedience to the law 
of his God. Hence, the dread of the loss of it was to in- 
fluence men in enduring whatever of trial might be their lot, 
during their sojourn in this state of probation ; and, pro- 
perly considered, will be a mighty stimulus to enable us to 
suffer even unto death, ii need be, that we may save our 
lives unto ETERNAL LIFE. 

2. It is said — The soul is spiritual, hence indestructible, 
and therefore immortal. One single consideration is suffi- 
cient to overthrow this argument, and show that it has no 
force. He who created can destroy. Oui Saviour saith. 
41 Fear him who is able to destroy both soul and bodv in 
hell." 

But the objector says, "Nothing can be destroyed — not 
even a grain of sand." If all the objector means is, man 
cannot destroy any thing, I admit it ; but if he means to 
prove any thing by this objection, he intends to be under- 
stood as saying, God cannot destroy any thing. Such an 
argument might pass in the mouth of a professed atheist ; 
but for a professed believer in the being and power of Je- 
hovah to use it, is shocking ; unless he can prove that God 
has said,, ihdt nothing He has created shall be destroyed. 

Because man cannot destroy " a grain of sand," does it 
therefore follow that God cannot do it, if He will ? If it is 
true, that because man cannot destroy a grain of sand, God 
cannot do it — it is equally true that, because man cannot 
create a grain of sand, God cannot do it ; and thus we 
should be driven into the theory, that all things which we 
consider created, are, in fact, eternal, and never had a be- 
ginning. If the objector is not willing to take this position, 
let him admit that God can, if he will, destroy, or cause to 
cease to have existence " the souls" He has " made." 

Having examined the first two arguments in favour of 
the immortality of the souls of all men, and shown, as I 
think, that they have no foundation in truth, the ground of 
the argument is narrowed to this one point, viz, : — 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL? 



7 



3. Is it the will of God that wicked men shall be im- 
mortal ? 

In determining this question, I shall call no man master 
or father that now lives or ever did live. It will weigh not 
a straw in my mind, what any of the (so called) " fathers," 
have said or written ; but what saith the testimony of God \ 
*' To the law and to the testimony ; if any man speak not 
according to these, it is because there is no light in him.*' 

To commence, I call attention to what man lost by the 
fall. In order to understand this, let us look at man prior 
to the fall. He was a probationer. For what ? Not for 
happiness — for he had that in possession. Not for life, 
merely, as he was in the enjoyment of that also. I con- 
clude it was for eternal life — figured and set forth before 
his eyes by the " tree of life" — as death, the opposite, was 
set forth by the " tree of knowledge of good and evil." 
Each of those trees, I conclude, were signs; the one of 
Life,' the other of Death — not of man's body merely, but 
of the whole man ; or, in other words, « Life and Death" 
were " set before" him. Eternal life must depend upon the 
absence of evil ; if evil is introduced, death must follow. 
Man had before him a standing call and warning — a call to 
obedience and Life ; a warning against disobedience, or sin 
and Death. He disregarded the warning, and slighted the 
call — he sinned. Now, " The Lord said, lest he (man) 
put forth his hand, and take of the tree of life, and eat, and 
LIVE FOR EVER, he (God) drave out the man, and he 
placed a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep 
the way of the tree of life." That is, as clear as language 
can express it, the Lord God determined, or willed, that 
man should not be immortal in his sin : or, in other words, 
in the day man sinned he lost ail title to immortality, and 
was cut off from the " tree of life ;" or, the sign God had 
given him of eternal life, was " hid from" his " eyes." 

That this loss relates to the whole man, and not to the 
body merely, as some suppose, I prove from the fact, that 
if it related to the body only, there is not a particle of evi- 
dence in the transaction, of pronouncing sentence upon 
man, by his Maker, that any penalty was threatened to the 
soul, or inflicted upon it. There is surely none in the con- 



8 



BIBLE EXAMINES. 



text ; and it appears to me, that if the exclusion from the 
tree of life, lest man should eat and live for ever, does not 
relate to the whole man, there is no evidence there that the 
0 enunciation of God against man affected anything hut 
man's body. God could have constituted man immortal in 
Mis sin and misery ; but it appears it was his pleasure that 
he should not be ; and this will of God is expressed in the 
text under consideration. 

Again — That this loss related to the whole man, I prove 
from the fact, that our Saviour, in his address to one of the 
seven churches of Asia, says, " To him that overcometh, 
will I give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of 
the paradise of God." How clear the reference, and how 
obvious, that it is the whole man that is spoken of ; and 
that none are to have access to that tree, or have immor 
tality, but such as overcome ! 

But I wish to call attention further to the tree of life, to 
show that it related to something more than the body 
Revelation, 22d chapter and 2d verse, we read thus ; — " In 
the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, 
was there the tree of life," &c. ; and at the 14th verse— 
" Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they 
may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through 
the gates into the city." The reference here is too clear 
to be misunderstood ; no one will pretend that this relates 
to the body merely. By what authority, then, do they as- 
sume it, in regard to the " tree of life" in Paradise ? 

Allow me here to introduce an extract or two from Rich- 
ard Watson. His "Institutes" are well known among 
many in this county, as w r ell as in Europe. In his ser- 
mon on " Paradise shut and re-opened," he has this re- 
mark — " The tree of life was a kind of sacrament. As the 
promise of immortality was given to Adam, every time he 
ate of this tree by God's appointment, he expressed his 
faith in God's promise ; and God, as often as he ate of it, 
sealed the promise of immortality to man. In this view, 
sin excluded man from the tree of life, as he lost his title 
to immortality." Again, Mr. Watson says, in his sermon 
on " The tree of life," — " It has been suggested that it was 
the natural means appointed to counteract disease by med- 



ARE THE WICKED 131 MORTAL ? 



9 



ical virtue ; and thus to prevent bodily decay and death. 
This," he says, « is not an improbable hypothesis ; but we 
have no authority for it; and if we had, our inquiries 
would not be at an end. For this hypothesis relates only 
to the body ; whereas we find the tree of life spoken of in 
connexion with the life of the soul — not only with immor- 
tality on earth, but with immortality in heaven." 

" It is not, therefore, without reason," he continues, " that 
many eminent divines have considered this tree as a con- 
stant pledge to Adam of a higher life ; and since there was 
a covenant of works, the tenor of which was, « this do, and 
thou shalt live,' — and as we know God has ever connected 
signs, seals, and sacraments with his covenants — analogy 
may lead us to conclude that this tree was the matter of 
saeramenU— the eating of it a religious act ; and that it was 
called « the tree of life/ because it was not only a means 
of sustaining the immortality of the body, but the pledge 
of spiritual life here, and of a higher and more glorious life 
in a future state, to which man might pass, not, indeed, by 
death, but by translation." 

" This will explain," continues Mr. Watson, "the rea 
son why the fruit of that tree was prohibited after man had 
sinned. He had broken the covenant, and had no right 
now to eat of the sign, the sacrament, the pledge of im- 
mortality. i Lest he put forth his hand, and take also of 
the tree of life, and eat and live for ever : therefore, the 
Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden. God 
resumed his promises, withdrew the sign of them, and now 
refused any token or assurance of his favour." 

Mr. Watson adds, " The Judge passes sentence, but the 
Judg3 also gives a promise ; and man is bidden to hope in 
another object, ' the seed of the wonian.' That seed was 
henceforth to be his tree of life." 

Thus much for Mr. Watson. He did not hold the doc- 
trine for which I contend, in regard -to the final destiny of 
the wicked ; still, there are passages in his works w T hich 
look strongly that way. 

I conceive that A Jam's posterity in his loins when he 
sinned, would never have come into conscious being, had 
il not been for the promised " seed of the woman.'' Man, 



10 



BIBLE EXAMINES. 



after his apostacy, was without hope ; and being in despair, 
ois situation must have been such as to cut off all pleasure 
or enjoyment, and so render him as incapable of propaga- 
ting his species as the devils, till such time as his Maker 
gave him the cheering hope of a deliverer, ' 

Adam himself came short of immortality, and would, 
ultimately, have utterly perished, or ceased to be, had it not 
been for the " seed of the woman.'*' This truth, then, 
comes full into view, that there is 110 immortality in sin. 
Or, in other words, God has willed that the wicked shall 
not have immortality. Adam being cut off from immor- 
tality could not possibly communicate it to his posterity : 
this invaluable blessing therefore was ever after to be had 
" only'' in Christ ; for God has given unto us ETERNAL 
LIFE, and this life is in his Son ; so that " He that hath 
the Son, hath life," whilst " he that hath not the Son of 
God hath not lifer 

Facts prox God's Word for Consideration. 

Before I proceed further, I wish to call attention to a few 
facts from the Scriptures of divine truth. 

The word "Eternal" occurs but twice in the Old Testa- 
ment, Once in Deut. 33 : 27, and is applied to God — 
" The eternal God is thy refuge," — and once in Isa. 60 : 15. 
and is spoken of the people of God — " I will make thee an 
eternal excellency." 

The phrase " Eternity" occurs but once in the Bible, 
viz., Isa. 57 : 15, and is applied to God — " Thus saith the 
nigh and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity." 

How common to hear men talk about eternity — and to 
hear ministers tell their hearers they are going into eternity 
— and urge that consideration upon them, to call up atten- 
tion. " Prepare for eternity," say they. To my mind, it 
is evident, that consideration is not made use of. in the 
Scriptures, to lead men to God. Jesits Christ, nor his apos- 
tles ever used it. They preached that men were perishing 
— dying — exposed to death — in danger of losing everlast- 
ing life — travelling in the way that leadeth to destruction. 

exhorted them to repent — believe — to lead a new life 
—to save themselves from this untoward generation — to lay 



ARE THE WICKED I3I3IOHTAL? 



11 



hold on eternal life, &c but never told their hearers — 

»* You are hastening to eternity ;" for, I repeat it, that is 
not true, in fact. When men die, they go into the invisi- 
ble state, and are reserved until the judgment. 

The phrase " eternal life," occurs no where in the Bible, 
except in the New Testament, and is always spoken of the 
righteous ; it never has connected with it» an} 7 qualifying 
terms, such as " happy," " blessed," or " miserable," &c, 
but simply denotes life in opposition to the death of the 
wicked. See Eomans 6:21-23. "What fruit had ye 
then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed ? for the 
end of those things is death. But now being made free 
from sin, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end 
everlasting life ; for the wages of sin is death : but the gift 
of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord." 

Here life and death are put in opposition, and no intima- 
tion is given that the death of the w r icked is eternal con- 
scious being in torments. 

It is very common to hear people talk about a happy 
eternal life — a blessed eternal life — a glorious eternal life ; 
as though the language of the Bible were not explicit 
enough. Such additions to the word of God, give evidence, 
if we had no other, that there is something defective in their 
theory. Such additions ought always to be looked upon 
with suspicion ; and, if received at all, be received with 
great caution. 

In interpreting the Scriptures, if we would be saved from 
the wild fields of conjecture, and save ourselves from an en- 
tire dependence upon others for the knowledge of what the 
Bible teaches, we must have some settled principles of in- 
terpretation. The following I consider the most important ; 
first — That words are to have their primary, and obvious 
meaning, unless there is a clear necessity of departing from 
it. By their primary and obvious meaning, I mean, the 
plain, and direct sense of the words, such as they may be 
supposed to have in the mouths of the speakers, who used 
them according to the language of that time and country in 
which they lived, without any of those learned, artificial, and 
forced senses, which are put on them by those who clain: 
the right to be the " authorized expounders of the Bible 



L2 



BIBLE EXAMINEE. 



Such forced sense is, usually, nothing more than the pecu- 
liar notions that they have been bred up in, and may have 
no better foundation than the superstition of some good old 
ancestor. 

The next principle of interpretation I would lay down is. 
That it is a truth, from which we are not to depart without 
the clearest evidence, that words are never used to mean 
more than their primary signification ; though they may be, 
and often are. used to signify something less. !Xot to au- 
heie to this principle is to make revelation no reveiatitm. 
Those who abandon this principle may as well admit, at 
once, that the common people ought not to have the Bible, 
for it will only lead them astray. 

The primary meaning of the term death is, '•' the extinc- 
tion of life." To say, then, that when God threatens men 
with death, he does not mean they shall die. but be kept 
alive in eternal torments, it seems to me is not warranted 
by any ordinary use of language. 

"What should we think of a law that says, " For murder 
thou shalt die,"' if we were told the meaning is not, that the 
transgressor shall actually die, but be kept alive in unde- 
scribable torments, protracted to the greatest possible extent 2 
Would any man think he was fairly dealt with by such an 
administration? And would he not have just cause of 
complaint at the want of definiteness in the terms used to 
denote the punishment threatened! 

The term Immoriat' occurs but once in the Bible, viz.: 
1 Timothy 1: IT: and is applied to God. '-The king 
eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God." 



If we were to judge by the frequency that we hear the 
phrase " immortal soul," we should suppose it was the most 
common expression in the Scriptures. You will hardly 
hear a sermon without the preacher often telling, with great 
emphasis, about « the immortal soul," as though he thought 
that qualifying term was all important to impress his hear- 
ers with a sense of the soul's value ; not content, with the 
Saviour, to ask — « What is a man profited if he shall gaiii 
the whole world, and lose his own soul ?" No, that won!., 
be quite too weak, in his estimation, and he must strengthen 
it by adding, •'■ immortal." To show the absurdity of sucl 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL. 



. course, I have only to say — That which is immortal, can- 
not be lost. Hence, the persons who use this qualifying 
*erm, have to add another, and say — lose all " happiness." 
Now, the loss of the soul, and the loss of happiness, are two 
very different things, and each capable of being expressed in 
appropriate language. To say, then, that when our Saviour 
said, a man may " lose his own soul," he did not mean that 
he will come short of immortality, perish, or cease all sense 
and life, but only that he shall lose the happiness of his 
soul, is, in my mind, making sad havoc of the word oi 

' God - . 

As in sermons, so it is in prayers. Men seem to think 
prayers have but little power, unless they spice them often 
with, " immortal soul :" and they would probably stare at 
you, as though they thought you an infidel, if you were to 
tell them that the Bible no where calls the soul immortal. 

How often, too, do we hear the phrase " deathless spirit," 
in direct contradiction of the testimony of God, which ex- 
pressly declares, « the soul that sinneth, IT SHALL DIE.' 

A hymn, often sung, begins as follows : — 

" A charge to keep I have, 
A God to glorify, 
A never dying soul to save 
And fit it for the sky." 

The same hymn ends thus : — 

Help me to watch and pray, 
And on thyself reiy, 
Assured if I my trust betray, 
I shali forever die.'''' 

How a never dying soul can forever die. it will take ax 
least a poet to tell 5 or a very learned divine. Common 
people are not skilled in such palpable contradictions. 

The term " immortality occurs only five times in the 
Bible, and is never spoken of the wicked ; but is brought 
to view as something to be sought after, and to be found 
alone in Christ. " To them who by patient continuance in 
well doing, seek for honour, glory, immortality, — eternal 
life," Rom. 2 : 7. Why, I pray, are men to seek for it, if 
it is the inheritance of all ? It is easy to say, as some do } 
2 



14 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



that it is a " blessed" immortality we are to seek for : but 
that is an " adding" to God's word, as I think, that is un- 
warranted by any other portion of that blessed volume. 

" Mortality" occurs but once in the Bible ; 2 Cor. 5:4 ; 
and is an earnest desire of the righteous to have it « swal- 
lowed up of life." Paul, in Rom. 8:10, says, " If Christ 
be in you, the body is dead" (i. e. mortal, doomed to die,) 
"because of sin; but the spirit is life" (why ? because the 
souls of men are immortal ? ISo ; bu 4 ) « because of righte- 
ousness clearly implying that it is the righteousness, or 
having Christ in them, that makes their spirits immortal. 
This is further evident from the next verse, where he as- 
sures them that their " mortal bodies" should be quicken- 
ed," i. e. be made immortal by the spirit of him who raised 
up Jesus from the dead. 

That the meaning of the term " quickened," in this text, 
is to be made immortal, will appear, if we consider, that i? 
it signifies no more than the raising of the body from the 
dead, this will be done whether " the spirit of him that rais- 
ed up Jesus from the dead dwell in" them or not ; for 
u there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just 
and of the unjust." The difference is, the righteous rise to 
immortality, as Paul saith in 1 Cor. 15th chapter: but the 
wicked rise to be judged and condemned to the second 
death. And as by the first death they cease to be on earth ; 
so by the second death they cease to be in the Universe of 
God ; or are " destroyed forever." 

Man is said to be " corruptible," in opposition to the 
" ^corruptible God." See Rom. 1 : 23. Again ; ei They 
that sow to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption," not 
immortality. See Gal. 6 : 8. The wicked shall " utterly 
perish in their own corruption." 2 Peter 2 : 12 

Remarks. 

If the view I take of this subject be correct, then many 
portions of Scripture, which have been obscure on the com- 
mon theory, become clear, beautiful, and full of meaning 
and force. If men are really dying, according to the strict 
and literal meaning of that term, soul as well as body, oi 
the whole man, then the language in which they are ad- 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL 



15 



dressed is strictly calculated to awaken attention, and move 
their hearts. For example : In him was life ; and the 
life was the light of men."' Again : Men are represented 
as sitting •'• in darkness, and in the shadow of death ; ? ' i. e. 
death is so near them that his dark shadow is over them : 
but Christ is « the true light, which lighteth every man that 
cometh into the world thus showing them how to escape 
death. Again i u The bread of God is he whicn cometh 
down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world — I am j 
the- bread of life. This is the bread that cometh down from 
heaven, that a man may eat thereof and XOT DIE.'" 

How natural and forcible these and similar texts are. on 
the supposition that man is actually dying . It takes not a 
scholar, or doctor of divinity, to see how appropriate the 
remedy to the disease. Men by sin have been cut off from 
the tree of life— they were starving, dying. Christ comes : 
the bread of life — the feast is spread : — hungry, dying souls 
are invited, without money and without price. Come, eat 
and LIVE. If you stay away, you DIE. 0, come to 
Christ and live — yea, live for ever, and not die. Amen, 



SECOND S2SOOUESS. 



"Ye shall not surely die." Gen. iii, -L 

Our Saviour saith — * the devil is a liar and the father of 
it." He commenced his attack on our race by telling our 
first parents they should u not surely die,"' if they did dis- 
obey God. He was too successful in that game to have 
forgotten the lucky card ; he has played it round, in some 
form, on men, ever since he first swept Paradise with it. 
He told Eve. in her innocency. while holy, and in love with 
her Maker, that the God of love could not give place to 
such feelings as to cut them off from life if they did do 
what he had forbidden. He was successful, and he has 
never forgotten his success. True, h^ has turned his card 



since, but it is the same card still. It has still inscribed on 
it — « Ye shall not SURELY DIE."' Now he makes use 



L6 



BIBLE EXAMINES. 



of it, as I think, to insinuate that God does not love or pity 
man, seeing he has determined that man shall not dil, but 
be kept alive in eternal consciousness, in undescribable tor- 
ments, for his sins. 

As the doctrine, Ye shall not surely die," had its ori- 
gin with the old serpent, I cannot divest myself of the con- 
viction that the notion that wicked men will be kept eter- 
nally alive in torments, and never die, had its origin from 
the same source, as it appears to be a perfect fac-simile ; and 
that it was invented to inspire hard thoughts of God, and 
keep men from turning to Him by repentance and faith, or 
confidence, and acknowledging their sins against the God 
of love. And I solemnly believe, this doctrine has kept 
more souls away from God, and driven them to the disbe- 
lief of all future punishment, or into infidelity, than any 
other doctrine that was ever promulgated. I am solemnly 
convinced that it has done more to destroy souls than all 
other errors put together. 

Multitudes, without any proper reflection upon the claims 
of God's law, have rejected all future punishment, because 
of the nature of that which the " orthodox," as they are 
called, say is to be inflicted ; whilst others have lived and 
died in real infidelity, or what has been called so, because 
they could not believe that a Being whose word declares 
that he " is love," could inflict such punishment on even 
the worst and most bitter of his enemies. 

I shall attempt to show you that the death which is the 
wages of sin is not immortality in misery, but an actual 
extermination of bei?7g I say, then, in opposition to the 
old serpent, if men do . ot come to Christ, that they may 
have life, they shall surtiy die — past hope, past recovery. 

Let me here briefly call attention to the question at issue. 
It is not wmether men can be immortal, nor whether the 



righteous will be immortal, but will the conscious being of 
the wicked be eternal ? or is the punishment of the wicked 
interminable being in misery ? or destruction of being ? 

I use the term immortal, in these discourses, in its com- 
monly received meaning ; i. e. according to Grimshaw, " ex* 
empt from death;" and according to Walker, "never to 
die — never ending, perpetual." 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL 1 



17 



In my first discourse, I had brought the subject down to 
fhe inquiry, 

What are the terms employed to denote the 

PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. 

Are they such as can, by any fair construction of lan- 
guage, be made to mean that the -wicked have eternal con- 
scious being in misery ? Let us keep in mind, that words 
are not to be so explained as to mean mere than their pri- 
mary signification, without an obvious necessity ; though 
they may, and often do, signify less. 

Previous to the examination of those terms w 7 hich relate 
to the punishment of wicked men, I would say, they are 
not punished till after the judgment of the great day ; but 
are reserved to that day to be punished. Thus " God spared 
not the angels that sinned, but delivered them into chains 
of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment." And " ths 
Lord knoweth how to reserve the unjust unto the day of 
judgment to be punished." 2 Peter 2 : 4-9. And again, 
Job 21 : 30. " The wicked is reserved unto the day of de- 
struction." And Nahum 1:2. " The Lord reserveth wrath 
for his enemies." Jude 6. " He hath reserved unto the 
judgment of the great day." 

The terms employed are — Perish— Utterly perish— UU 
ierly consumed with terrors — Destroy — -Destroyed — Des* 
troy ed for ever — Destruction— To be burned' — Burned VP 
with unquenchable fire — Burn them up, that it shall leave 
them neither root nor branch — Perdition—Die — Death — 
Second death, 6fC. 

Let us now begin with the first of these terms, viz. : — 
" Perish." Grimshaw, in his Etymology, says it signifies* 
« to cease to have existence— to die — to decay." 

Which of these definitions is suited to convey the idea 
of eternal conscious being ? Can that which is never to 
cease, be said to be decaying ? Can that which has inter- 
minable life be said " to die ?" Can that which is always 
to continue in being, be said " to cease to have existence 
I need not pursue that inquiry ; it is a " self-evident truth," 
that however the term perish may be used, in an accommo- 
dated sense, to signify something less than an actual cesa* 
2* 



18 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



zng to be, it is even then borrowed from its primary signifi- 
cation, and must be restored to it when there is not a known 
necessity for departing from it. In the case under conside- 
ration, there can be no such necessity, unless it can first be 
proved that the wicked are immortal. 

Paul, in 1 Cor. 15 : 18, says — "Then," (if Christ be not 
raised,) " they also that are fallen asleep in Christ are per- 
ished." What ! in eternal conscious being in hell tor- 
ments ! The supposition is so absurd that my opponents 
admit that the term perish here means " to cease to be." 
By what twist of language can they ever make it mean any- 
thing else, when spoken of the final state of the lost ? 
Though the term is often used to denote something less 
than an actual ceasing to be, it does not therefore follow that 
it is used to mean something far greater and more horrible. 
To apply this term to an eternal state of conscious being 
in misery, is to force a sense upon it which is not warranted 
by God's word. 

Let us keep constantly in mind that the whole family of 
man, by birth, have no access to the tree of life, conse- 
quently were perishing, were dead to immortality. j\ T ow 
look at the following texts : 

" God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten 
Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but 
have everlasting life." Here everlasting life is the opposite 
of perishing. I pray, is everlasting being in misery the 
opposite of everlasting life ! The wicked, upon that view, 
have as really everlasting life as the righteous, though un- 
der different circumstances. 

" For we," saith an apostle, " are unto God a sweet savor 
of Christ in them that are saved, and in them that perish. 
To the one we are the savor of death unto death, and to 
the other of life unto life." 

Here perishing and life are put in opposition, and the 
term perish is explained by the apostle himself, to mean 
death, and not life in misery. 

I need not quote all the passages where this term is em- 
ployed to express the final doom of the wicked, in which it 
is evident we are to receive it in its primary meaning, and 
no other. Before I leave this term, however, I must call 



ARE THE WICKED TMMOETAL 1 



19 



your attention to one fact, and that is — in the A.cts of the 
Apostles, the very place where we should expect to find, if 
anywhere in the Bible, the doctrine of eternal conscious 
being in torments, because the apostles were addressing 
sinners, there is not a particle of evidence to support the 
common theory. On the contrary, the views I maintain are 
most clearly set forth by Paul, in the 13th chapter, in a dis- 
course to the " blaspheming" Jews, telling them that they 
judged themselves " unworthy of everlasting life," and add 
ing — "Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish.'' 
What an excellent occasion had the apostle to have aroused 
the Jews by the common theory, had he believed it ! 

Look at that chapter, and you will see, if there ever was 
a time in which the apostle was called to deal plainly, it 
was then. I ask if any preacher of our days, who believes 
in the immortality of the wicked, in preaching to such 
hardened sinners as the apostle addressed, contents him- 
self with such language as the apostle here used ? No 
They first describe the misery of the sinner in hell, and 
then, with the strongest figures they can produce, go on to 
give an idea of its duration, which, after all, they cannot 
find language to describe. The apostle did no such thing. 
There is not a particle of evidence of it in all his preaching 
and writings. 

" Die" and " Death." 

These terms primarily signify, "To perish — to come 
to nothing — the extinction of life." Hence, when these 
terms are applied to the soul, in regard to the final result 
of a course of sin, we ought to have good evidence that 
they are not to be understood in their primary meaning, 
before we depart from that interpretation ; especially, before 
we fix upon them a sense so contrary to their proper signi- 
fication as that of endless life, or being in torments. 

The apostle, in Rom. 1 : 32, speaking of certain wicked 
characters, says — ■" Who, knowing the judgment of God, 
that they that commit such things are worthy of death/' 
&c. In the 2d chapter, 5th verse and onwards, he speaks 
* of the righteous judgment of God," when « wrath" will 
be visited on the wicked ; and the death spoken of is ex 



2D 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



pressly called " perish"-ing. as the result of the " indigna- 
tion and wrath" with which the wicked will be visited " in 
the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus 
Christ.'' Death, then, as the apostle explains it. when ap- 
plied to the punishment of the wicked at the judgment, is 
to " perish." 

" The soul that sinneth it shall die," refers to its final 
doom. This will appear if we consider, men will die, i. e. 
leave this world, or state of being, whether they sin or net 
Nor can it refer to a violent leaving this world, as some 
suppose ; for all sinners do not die a violent death. I con- 
clude, then, that it relates to the soul's final doom. 

" As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the 
death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way 
and live ; turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye die ?" evidently 
looks to the same result, the final destiny of the wicked. 
Life and death are put in opposition : not life and conscious 
being in misery, but simple life and death, without any 
qualifying terms to lead any one to suspect that they are to 
be understood any other way than in their most obvious 
meaning ; and I cannot but think, if you were to put the 
Bible into the hands of a person who had never heard a 
word of explanation, he would so understand it. 

Lest I should, in the present discourse, take up too much 
time in the examination of these terms, I will pass over the 
remainder of them till another time. 

Having, as I think, established the point that the wicked 
are not immortal, I might leave it to the believer in the op- 
posite theory to prove his position from the Bible, and pur- 
sue the subject no further. I shall not, however, shrink from 
meeting the supposed objections to my view. 

Objections Exaxixed. 
The objections do not arise from any positive proof in 
the Bible that the wicked are immortal, but from circun> 
Btantial evidence, drawn from expressions used in reference 
to the punishment of the impenitent. The first objection 
I shall notice is founded on the case of the " rich man," 
who died and lifted up his eyes in hell, being in torments. 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL. 



21 



By facts as well as parables the Bible communicates in- 
struction. In order to a right understanding of the speaker 
or writer, we should first inquire what was the object in 
view, or the instruction intended to be imparted. This we 
can only learn from the text, context, or comparing it with 
other portions of revelation. 

There appear to have been several points intended to 
be impressed upon the people, by our Saviour, in the text 
now under consideration ; and the instruction is the same 
whether it be considered a parable or history of facts. We 
will try to bring out some of the principal points that ap- 
pear in this text: — and 

1. It seems designed to show the folly and danger of 
trusting in riches. The changeabieness of the affairs of 
this life had been shown in the first part of this chapter ; 
they had also been cautioned to make a right use of the 
things of this world, and told that they could " not serve 
God and mammon." The Pharisees, who were covetous, 
derided him, i. e., laughed at him, mocked him, and turned 
what he said to ridicule. Our Saviour, after rebuking them, 
enforces what he had said, by introducing two persons, viz: 
a Rich man and a Poor man. Look at them — 

The Rich man was what most men would call a genteel 
liver ; living in good style, a prosperous and happy man. 
But, mark.— He dies — the next he finds of himself, he is 
in " torments.'' — His riches, splendor, sumptuous fare, and 
rich dresses have all, all fled. Who does not see in his 
case the danger of riches and the folly of trusting in them. 
But the picture is made more striking by introducing 

The Poor man. — He had no home— -no food — doubtless 
poorly clothed, covered with " sores ;" instead of many 
physicians he had "dogs" for his medical aid. But, he 
dies. The next he finds of himself he is unspeakably 
" comforted his " evil things" have passed away for ever. 
Who does not see, in a clear light, the dangerous tendency 
of worldly possessions ? Few persons can have them with- 
out indulging in an extravagance in dress, equipage, and 
food, which is ruinous to their souls ; or, which is equally 
fatal, making their happiness to consist in contemplating 
the largeness of their earthly treasures. 



22 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



I consider this to be the main point designed to be illus- 
trated — the folly and danger of seeking our good in this life, 
There are other points, viz : 

2. To expose the deception common among the Jews, 
that they should be saved because they were the children of 
«' Abraham." 

3. That this life is the only time to secure salvation — 
and the certainty of perishing without hope, if this period 
is neglected. 

4. The sufficiency of the means now employed to turn 
men to God — and hence, the folly of supposing that some 
other means would be more effectual. They would not be 
k persuaded though one rose from the dead." 

But does this prove what is to be the punishment unto 
, which the " rich man" is reserved ? Certainly not. What 
that wall be we are taught elsewhere in the Bible. This 
case, then, makes nothing against the theory I advocate. 

I will next examine the language of our Lord, « Their 
worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." It is said 
this proves the soul immortal. I remark — 

First. Whatever this punishment is, it is put in opposi- 
tion to " life." « If thy hand" or " foot offend thee, cut it 
off; it is better for thee to enter halt" or " maimed into life, 
than having two hands" or " feet," &c, " where the worm," 
&c. Who does not see that here is the opposite of life, and 
therefore is death, or utter extinction of being without pos- 
sibility of escape ? In a parallel passage, our Saviour saith, 
" If thy right eye" or " hand offend thee, cast it from thee ; 
for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should 
perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into 
hell." Here the " worm that dieth not, and the fire" that 
« is not quenched," we see, is another form of expression 
for perishing. 

Again, I remark, this expression of our Lord is a quota- 
tion from Isaiah 66 : 24, and is applied to the « carcasses" 
of " men," which I presume my opponents will not pretend 
were immortal. But if the language in one place proves 
immortality, why not in the other ? Then we shall have 
immortal carcasses as well as immortal souls. 

Once more, I observe. If the fire were quenched, they 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL ? 



23 



would not be utterly consumed, but something would re- 
main — there would not be an entire destruction. It is mani- 
fest to every mind, if a fire is quenched or put out, the 
work of utter destruction is arrested, and something is left 
of the object upon which the fire kindled. The same may 
be said, if the worm die the carcase will not be consumed ; 
but as the fire is not to be quenched, nor the worm die, 
therefore, they shall be utterly consumed, perish, cease to 
be found in the universe of God. The objector says, the 
idea of an unquenchable fire is, that it is never to go out. 
To show the fallacy of this, I will suppose my house is on 
fire. When my neighbours arrive to my help, I say, effort 
is useless — the fire is unquenchable. Pray, what do I 
mean ? That the fire will burn eternally ? Any school- 
bov knows I mean simply the house will be totally con- 
sumed. "Yes,'' says the objector, " that is true when the 
expression is applied to that which is consumable, but this 
is not the case with the soul." To this, I reply, That is 
the very point to be proved — that the soul is not consuma- 
ble or destructible. The objector says it is not, and I affirm 
that it is. 

If it is still maintained that " unquenchable fire" means 
" never to go out," I refer those persons to an examination 
of a few passages of God's word on that question. 2 Chron. 
34 : 25, " Because they have forsaken me, and burned in- 
cense unto other Gods, therefore my wrath shall be poured 
out upon this place, and shall not be quenched." Isa. 34 : 
9, 10, "And the land of Idumea shall become burning 
pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day : the smoke 
thereof shall go up for ever." Jeremiah 7 : 20, " Behold, 
mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this 
place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the 
field, and upon the fruit of the ground, and it shall burn, 
and shall not be quenched." Also, Jer. 17 : 27, "Then 
will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour 
the places of Jerusalem, and shall not be quenched." Once 
more. See Ezekiel 20 . 47, 4S, " Say to the forests of the 
South, Hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord 
God, Behold I will kindle a fire in thee, and it shall devour 
every green tree in thee, and every dry tree ; the flaming 



24 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



flame shall not be quenched ; and all flesh shall see that I, 
the Lord, have kindled it ; it shall sot be q/uexched.'' 

Now, I wish to know if any man in his senses will pre- 
tend that all these fires that shall not be quenched are " ne- 
ver to go out," in the strict sense of the term eternal? 
Does not any one see that so long as the things upon which 
the fire kindles are not proved to be immortal, the most ex- 
treme sense that can be fixed upon is, that there will be a 
total and irrecoverable destruction of them ? 

The objector's next resort is to our Lord's description of 
the final judgment. " And these shall go away into ever- 
lasting (eternal) punishment." Of course, says the objector, 
they must eternally be, to have the punishment eternal. 

This is probably the strongest argument in favour of the 
supposed immortality of the wicked. Let us then inquire 
in what sense the term eternal is here to be understood ? 
The same term is applied to the judgment itself in Heb. vi. 
2, « Eternal judgment." Does this mean that the judg- 
ment will be eternally going on and never completed ? or 
does it mean the final judgment ? the judgment from which 
there is no appeal ? and the results of which w T ill be eter- 
nal ? So I conceive " eternal punishment" signifies the final 
punishment — a punishment from which there is no appeal 
— from which there is no recovery — and the results of 
which are eternal. 

Here I am asked, " May not eternal life," upon the same 
principle, be called eternal because the results of it are eter- 
nal ?" I answer, it could not be called eternal life if it is 
ever to be succeeded by death. Therefore it would be a 
palpable contradiction to say the results of a thing are eter- 
nal which never had an existence. I admit that the results 
of eternal life are eternal ; for the very idea of life is con- 
sciousness, and stands opposed to cessation of being. If the 
text under consideration had simply said of the righteous, 
These shall enter into everlasting rewards, I grant it might 
possibly bear the construction my opponent thinks deduci- 
ble from ni} T principles of interpretation, unless some other 
portion of the Bible clearly showed that the righteous are 
to be immortal ; but that they are immortal is clearly and 
positively affirmed in the Scriptures. 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL? 



25 



Now let us inquire what is that punishment which is 
eternal ? The apostle tells us in the first chapter of 2d 
Thess., " Who shall be punished with an everlasting de- 
struction FROM THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD," 
&c. Too filthy to be in the sight of a holy God, as they 
eternally must be if immortal, he destroys them out of his 
presence, purifies his universe from the filth of sin and sin- 
ners, thus fully accomplishing the work for w T hich Christ 
was " manifested." 

Some tt'A us that " destruction from the presence of the 
Lord," &c. means only that the wicked will be put away 
from the place where God's favourable presence is enjoyed, 
and the glorious manifestations of his power are seen. In 
reply, I would say, if that is the meaning of the text, can 
the objector show that the punishment of the wicked w r ill 
be any thing more after the judgment, or different from what 
it was before in regard to the soul. He will not pretend that 
men who die in their sins are in the favourable presence of 
God before the judgment, and I have already shown that 
they are reserved unto the judgment to be punished ; it is 
then that they are to have " everlasting destruction from the 
presence of the Lord," &c. I leave the candid to judge 
whether my opponent's construction or mine is the most 
natural. 

It is said that " The terms employed to denote the bliss 
of the righteous and the misery of the wicked are the same." 
I suppose what the objector means is, that the qualifying 
terms, or the terms which denote the durability of the one 
are used also in reference to the other ; for certainly he 
cannot mean that « life" and " death" are the same terms. 

I admit the qualifying terms are the same. But what has 
the objector gained ? Does he not see that our Lord has 
Introduced a contrast ? " The righteous into life eternal," 
the wicked " into eternal punishment." I ask if eternal 
life in misery is the opposite of eternal life simply ? To 
make the contrast perfect, on the theory I oppose, it should 
read, or by fair inference bear this construction — These 
shall go away into an eternal iife of punishment, but the 
righteous into an eternal life of happiness. Instead of this, 
the punishment is a simple contrast with life, and the fail 
3 



26 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



inference is, that it is death, without a possibility of rc 
covery. That, I say, is the fair inference, unless you can 
prove their souls are immortal. 
But again — 

To this objection, I reply, the same terms are employed 
to denote the durability of God, and some portions of this 
earth. " Everlasting God" — " Everlasting mountains." 
What would be thought of me if I should undertake to 
prove from this that the world will never have an end ? — 
The texts quoted prove that the mountains are as eternal 
as God himself, just as much as the expressions denoting 
the durability of the bliss of the righteous and the punish- 
ment of the wicked prove that the conscious being of the 
latter is parallel with that of the former. 

What is the scripture argument that the mountains will 
not endure as long as God endures ? The Bible declares 
expressly that God is the "King eternal, immortal" — and 
it as expressly declares, that " The earth shall be melted, 
and the works that are therein shall be burned up " so that 
the everlasting mountains will be destroyed, while the ever- 
lasting God still endures without end. 

Now what is the Scripture argument that the righteous 
and the wicked are not equally immortal ? The Bible ex- 
pressly declares that the righteous " put on immortality" — 
that they have " eternal life" and it as expressly declares 
that the wicked Christ will "burn up;" yea, that the Lord 
of Hosts " shall burn them up," so that they shall be left 
"neither root nor branch" — that they shall die — be destroy- 
ed forever — perish — utterly perish, &c. 

If I wanted to make infidels, I would still maintain that 
the wicked will have an eternal conscious being, in the face 
of God's express declarations, like those above. When a 
" Thus saith the Lord" can be produced, that as expressly 
asserts the immortality of the wicked, as the language above 
does their extermination, then I may review the whole af- 
fair ; but that cannot be done, in my judgment. 

Another text, on which much reliance is placed, to sup- 
port the common theory, is Jude 7th. " Sodom and Go- 
morrah, and the cities about them, in like manner giving 
themselves over to fornication, and going after strange fleshy 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL? 



27 



ere set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eter- 
nal fire. 

Let us compare Scripture with Scripture. Peter, in his 
second epistle, gives us an account of this same matter. — 
He says, " If God spared not the angels that sinned, but 
cast them down to hell — to he reserved unto the judgment ; 
and spared not the old world, but saved Noah — a preacher 
of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the ungodly ; 
and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, 
condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ex- 
ample to those who after should live ungodly," &c. 

Thus Peter throws light on Jude. Both together show 
most clearly what displeasure God has manifested against 
sinners in the invisible world, and in this. It is concerning 
what has been done in this world, we aie here told, that 
God has made an example to those who should after live 
ungodly. 

These judgments inflicted on the old world, Sodom and 
Gomorrah, are a standing, and perpetual, or " eternal" ad- 
monition, warning, or « example" to all men to the end of 
the world, that live ungodly ; but it proves nothing as to 
what will constitute that punishment unto which they are 
expressly said, in this very connection, " to be reserved? 
and which is to be inflicted at the day of judgment ; which 
day is to be a day of " perdition of ungodly men." And 
as 'perdition signifies destruction , the natural inference is, 
that the wicked will be utterly destroyed with an " ever- 
asting destruction." 

Concluding Remarks. 

In my own mind the conclusion is irresistible, that the 
final doom of all the impenitent and unbelieving, is that 
they shall " utterly perish" — that they shall be " destroyed 
forever" — that their " end" is to be " burned up, root and 
jranch," with " fire unquenchable" — that they shall be cast 
into the lake of fire and brimstone, which is the second 
death — that they shall not have everlasting life, or being, 
but be " punished with everlasting destruction from the 
presence of the Lord" — that the universe of God will be 
purified not only from sin, but sinners — that « the works of 



28 



BIBLE EXAMINES. 



the devil" will be destroyed, exterminated ; but " blessed 
and holy is he who hath part in the first resurrection ; on 
such the second death hath no power." Then there will 
be a " new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and 
the first earth have passed away.'' « And God shall wipe 
away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more 
death, neither sorrow nor crying ; neither shall there be any 
more pain ; for the former things have passed away." 

The day when these tremendous scenes will transpire. 
I conceive, 41 is nigh, even at the doors." Yes. the time is 
at hand, when the wrath of God will be revealed from 
Heaven — a day. described by the apostle, of « indignation 
and wrath : tribulation and anguish upon every soul of 
man that doth evil." Then they that have "sinned without 
law shall also perish without law :" and a not less fearful 
doom awaits those that have sinned in the light of the law 
and gospel both. 

That awful day will soon overtake us ; and who may 
abide the day of his coming ? Behold, that day " shall 
burn as an oven ; and all the proud, and all that do wick- 
edly will be stubble ;" as incapable of resisting that wrath, 
that shall come upon them, as stubble is to resist the de- 
vouring flame, 

Let us be wise now, therefore, and prepare to meet God. 
" Kiss the Son. lest he be angry, and ye perish from the 
way when his wrath is kindled but a little." u But blessed 
are all they that put their trust in him." 



THIHD DISCOUHS2. 

"Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and 
they are they that testify of me ; and ye will not come unto me that ye 
might have Zrfc." John v. 39, 40. 

Some translate this text, "Ye do search the Scriptures," 
&.c. It makes ,ery little difTerence which way it is under- 
stood, whether as a command of what should be done, or as 
'i declaration of what was done. Either way, it shows tho 



ABE THE WICKED IMMORTAL ? 29 



immense value of the Scriptures, because they reveal eter- 
nal life ; and it shows, too, that the object they had in 
searching, was to learn about eternal life — not a happy 
eternal life — a blissful eternal life — but eternal life, simply. 
And further, it shows that the Scriptures are the proper 
place to search for that inestimable blessing. Every man is 
bound to do this for himself, and not trust to his teachers 
alone, as I fear too many do. 

Teachers may be good men — honest men ; they may in- 
tend to lead the people into truth, and preserve them from 
error ; yet they are but men — fallible men, and may « err 
not knowing the Scriptures and besides, it is possible 
they may be bad men, who may have some other object in 
view than to " save souls from death ;" but if this is not 
the case, and they are sincere, still it must be recollected, 
we have all received our education, from the first dawnings 
of intellect, under an influence that has necessarily given 
eur minds a bias to a particular theory, or mode of inter- 
preting the Scriptures ; that mode may be right, or it may 
be wrong ; be it which it may, our teachers themselves have 
most likely had their opinions formed by it, and will teach 
it ; but they cannot give an account for us to God ; every 
man must give an account of himself. 

It will avail us nothing, at the judgment, to plead that 
our teachers taught us so, — or, that ecclesiastical bodies 
decreed or established such a belief, or articles of faith. It 
will roll back in thunder tones in our ears — "Every one 
must give an account of himself to God." " You had the 
Scriptures, and the injunction to search them — and if you 
have erred to the ruin of your soul through false teaching, 
you have done it with the words of eternal life in your 
hands ; but which you have trusted others to interpret for 
you, instead of giving that application of your own minds 
to the subject which it was your duty to do, instead of be- 
ing absorbed by the things of time."' 

Would not such words be dreadful words in our ears at 
the great judgment day ? Should we not then fully realize 
the truth of that Scripture which saith, « Cursed be the man 
that trusteth in man ?" 

Teachers may be helps to understand the Scriptures, but 
3* 



so 



BIBLE EXAMINE!?. 



should never be trusted as infallible guides 5 nor should 
they ever be allowed to decide authoritatively for us, what 
the true meaning of God's word is. Any such attempt on 
the part of teachers, is a manifest usurpation of the pre- 
rogative of Jehovah, and should always be resisted. Let 
teachers in religion keep to their appropriate work ; which 
is not to be - lords over God's heritage," but to be "helpers," 
and " ensamples to the flock." They are not to decide who 
are heretics and who are orthodox, but to show men their 
sins — their perishing, dying condition, and point them to 
Christ, the great Physician, that the}' may " have life." 

The expression of our Lord — "Ye will not come unto 
me that you might have life," shows that men are exposed 
to death. The only question, with us, in these discourses, 
is, to deside what that death is : — whether it is eternal life in 
misery, or destruction of being. My position is, that it is 
the latter ; and I have endeavoured to establish that point 
from the Scriptures. How far I have been successful in my 
attempt, others will judge for themselves. No man can be- 
lieve without evidence. Some, it is true, will not believe 
whatever the evidence might be, unless they could find the 
thing proposed for belief was likely to be popular. But no 
one need calculate on popularity who sets himself to follow 
truth wherever it may lead him. Our Lord himself " was 
despised and rejected of men." 

In my last discourse, I had brought down my examina- 
tion of objections nearly to the close of the Bible. What 
remains for me to do, is, in the first place, to finish that 
examination ; then, I shall take up objections from other 
sources ; after which, I shall sustain my position by a mass 
of Scripture testimony not yet introduced but in part. 

Examination of Scripture Objections Contisueb. 

The next objection I shall notice, grows out of Rev. 14 : 
9 to 11. This text has, I believe, almost universally been 
applied to the final punishment of the wicked. If it did so 
apply, it would prove nothing more than that the wrath 
poured upon them, is awful . and, that from its effects there 
is to be no recovery. But to prove the immortality of the 
soul from this text, two things must be established, viz. . 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL? 



31 



That this is spoken of the punishment of the wicked m a 
future state ; and if so, that the phrase " for ever and ever," 
is to be understood in its primary sense. 

! My own opinion is, that it relates to judgments inflicted 
in this world on Babylon. An angel had just cried, " Ba- 
bylon is fallen," &c. $ then follows the description referred 
to. But some say, Babylon means the whole wicked 
power ; and the destruction of all the wicked, in a future 
state, is brought to view. If so, then the presumption w 
greatly increased that the wicked are not immortal, from the 

1 fact that the Revelator says, in the 18th chapter, " She [Ba- 
bylon] shall be utterly burnt with fire ; and with violence 
shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall 
be found no more at all" 

God says in Isa. 34 : 10, of the land of Idumea, that it 
"shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched 
night nor day ; the smoke thereof shall go up forever." 
Surely, no one will pretend that this language proves, tbat 
the land of Idumea is immortal. But it does, just as truly 
as the text in Rev. proves the wicked are immortal ; and if 
that is admitted, then we may have not only immortal souls, 
and immortal carcasses, but immortal land ! But if this 
expression does not prove the land of Idumea immortal, so 
neither can it prove wicked men are immortal, — that must 
be proved from some other source ; if that can be done ? 
and the text is established to be speaking of the punish- 
ment of the wicked in a future state, then I admit that the 
language employed necessarily implies the perpetuity, or 
eternity, of conscious being in torments : but till those 
points are proved, I must still maintain that the wicked 

| have no immortality. Though I might rest the argument 

! here, and leave my opponent to the burden imposed upon 
him, I shall, nevertheless, now attempt to show that Rev, 
14 . 9 to 11, has its fulfilment on earth, and therefore is not 
spoken of the punishment of the wicked in a future state. 
Let us put down the text* 

" If any man worship the beast and his image, and re- 
ceive his mark in his forehead or his hand, the same shall 
drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured 
«ufc without mixture mtp the cup of his indignation 5 and 



32 



BIBLE EXAMINEE. 



he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone (an evident 
allusion to Sodom and Gomorrah,) in the presence of the 
holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb : and the 
smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever, (an 
allusion to the smoke of the land of Idumea,) and they 
have no rest day nor night who worship the beast and his 
image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." 

The inquiry is — Is this wrath poured out in this world, or 
the world to come ? In other words, Are the judgments 
here spoken of,' inflicted on earth, or in the invisible world ! 

The Revelator proceeds to describe judgments about to 
be executed on the worshippers of the beast * and he tells 
us, chap. 15, that he "saw seven angels having the seven 
last plagues ; for in them is filled up the WTath of God — 
and one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels, 
seven golden vials full of the wrath of God." Immediately 
after this, at the 16th chapter, he says, "I heard a great 
voice out of the temple, saying to the seven angels, Go 
your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God 
upon the earth. And the first angel poured out his vial 
upon the earth ; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore 
upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon 
them which worshipped his image." How exactly does the 
judgment correspond with the threatening in the 14th 
chapter! But look still further. 

" The fourth angel poured out his vial upon the Sun ; and 
power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And 
men w T ere scorched with a great heat, and blasphemed the 
name of God, which hath power over these plagues ; and 
they repented not to give him glory." 

"And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat 
of the beast, and his kingdom was full of darkness ; and 
they gnawed their tongues for pain, and blasphemed the 
God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and 
repented not of their deeds." 

Here, then, is a perfect fulfilment of the threatening found 
in the 14th chap. 9th to 11th verse; and the apostle ex- 
pressly tells us, it takes place " upon the earth." And if 
the term " forever and ever," in the text under consideration, 
is to be taken in its primary meaning, we shall be able te 



ARE THE WICKED IMMOSTAL 1 



33 



prove that the " worshippers of the beast" will live eternally 
'upon the earth ;" for that is where the " smoke of their 
torment ascenaeth up forever and ever." 

I would here remark — That the judgment spoken of, in 
the text under consideration, cannot be the final punishment 
of the wicked ; because that is to be an everlasting destruc- 
tion from the presence of the Lord, and this is expressly 
said to be in the presence of the Lamb ; so that the two 
scenes,, whatever they may be, are not one and the same, 
but different events, which could not be the case if the com- 
mon theory is correct. 

When I stated, as my opinion, that « destruction from 
the presence of the Lord" is to be understood according to 
the plain and obvious meaning, i. e. out of the presence of 
the Lord, or extinction of being, the objector said—" No — 
it means from his favourable presence." The text before 
us says, they shall be " tormented in the presence of the 
Lamb." Does that mean in his « favourable" presence ? 

I now follow the advocates of the eternal conscious being 
of the wicked to their last resort in the Bible,, viz : Rev. 20: 
10, " The jdevil was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone 
i — and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever." 
In reply, I remark : 

Some of the most learned men, and men, too, who be- 
lieve in the common theory of. the endless being of the 
wicked in torments, have represented that the « terms ' ever- 
lasting,' * forever,' and the like, are uniformly used in the 
Scriptures to denote the longest possible duration of which 
the subject to which they are applied is capable." 

If this representation is correct, and I see no reason to 
dissent from it, then the text under consideration proves that 
the devil, and his associates in misery, are to be tormented 
during the whole period of their being : and of course cuts 
off restorationism ; but does by no means prove that Satan, 
or wicked men, are immortal ; on the contrary, we are ex- 
pressly taught, Heb. 2 : 14, that Christ shall « destroy the 
devil." Not destroy the " happiness" of the devil— that is 
done already ; but his person, his being. Any other con- 
struction of the words, I conceive, is uncalled for and un- 
natural, unless it can first be shown that he is immortal. 



34 



BIBLE EXAMINEE. 



It 2S further evident that the devils themselves expect to 
be destroyed. " Hast thou come to destroy us," said they 
to him who will finally do that work. In one place they 
say, « Hast thou come hither to torment us before the time ?" 
Both of these expressions show that the devils expect to be 
further tormented, and more awfully tormented, even with 
such anguish as shall result in their destruction : and how 
undescribably tremendous must be that wrath which shall 
utterly consume even a spirit ; a wrath so tremendous that 
even mighty angels utterly perish under it ! The wicked 
are to be cast into the lake of fire, which is the second 
death ; and are as truly and reallv destroved as « death and 
hell." 

If it be said — " Cast into the lake of fire, this is the se- 
cond death," means not that they shall actually die ; but 
that being in the lake of fire is the second death, though 
they will never be burned up, I reply, such an interpretation 
contradicts the explicit testimony of God's word, which de- 
clares, the wicked shall be burned up. " The lake that 
burnetii with fire and brimstone," is a phrase used to repre- 
sent the second death. It points out the awful anguish of 
a dying sinner In his last struggle for life. The expression 
may represent awful torments not resulting in death ; but 
here it is expressly said, " this is the second death ;" which 
leaves no room to doubt of its meaning. 

If the phrase " second death," when applied to death and 
hell, signifies an utter extermination, as Dr. Adam Clark 
thinks, then I can see no good reason for denying that the 
same is the fate of the wicked, as the language employed is 
the same ; unless it can be first proved that the wicked are 
immortal from some other portion of the Bible than that 
which speaks of their punishment. The arguments used by 
my opponents to prove the eternal conscious being of the 
wicked, is drawn from the language which speaks of their 
punishment, or torments. And why do they infer, that this 
language proves the eternal conscious being of the wicked } 
Because, say they, the soul is immortal / That is the very 
point to be proved. Their argument, when put in form, 
stands thus : 

First proposition : — The soul is immortal. 



AEE THE WICKED IMMORTAL. 



Inference : — The wicked "will have eternal conscious 
being in misery. 

Second proposition .-—The wicked will have eternal con- 
scious being in misery. 

Inference : — Therefore the soul is immortal. 

Here an attempt is made to establish the truth of the 
first proposition by an inference drawn from that proposi- 
tion ; when the truth of that inference, itself, depends upon 
the truth of the first proposition. Hence it is evident that 
nothing can be proved in this way to sustain the doctrine 
of the immortality of the wicked. It is reasoning in a 
circle. 

Here, again, I refer to the language of Richard Watson, 
in his « Institutes." Though he believed in the eternal 
being of all souls, yet he sa} T s, vol. ii. page 250, the notion 
"that the soul is naturally immortal is contradicted by 
Scripture, which makes our immortality a gift, dependent on 
the will of the giver." And again, page 167 and 168, 2d 
volume, he calls the doctrine of the " natural immortality 
of the soul" an « absurdity." The question then is, does 
God " give" immortality to any but the " holy." My oppo- 
nents say, " Yes and I answer No. " Blessed and holy is 
he who hath part in the first resurrection : on such the 
second -DT.A.TH. has no poiuer" All others will experience 
it, and forever be cut off from immortality. 

Otheh Objections. 

Having examined every important text that I know of, 
relied upon m the Bible, to establish the common theory, 
I do not consider that my opponents have any claim upon 
me to answer other objections, not having their foundation 
in the Scriptures ; as the book of God is the oniy infallible 
rule of faith. I have no fear, however, to lock in the face 
objections from other sources, and shall notice all of them 
that have come within my knowledge. 

First, then, it is said, " The benevolence of God obliges 
him to inflict the greatest possible punishment, in order to 
deter men from sin." 

To say nothing of the absurdity of such a proposition, 
it is enough to reply that the common sense of every en- 



36 



BIBLE EXAMINER . 



lightened and Christianized people, as well as their practice, 
concemns such a view of benevolence. 

Suppose the Legislature of this State should pass a law, 
as they have done, condemning the murderer to death ; and 
suppose the judge, on the conviction of the criminal, should 
proceed to pronounce sentence, by saying — « You, the pri- 
soner, are clearly convicted of the crime specified in the 
law ; you are, therefore, to suffer the penalty of said law, 
which is, that you be tortured over a slow lire — and to pre- 
vent your dying, an able and skilful physician will stand 
by you, with powerful remedies, to prevent the fire from 
causing death ; but said fire is to be as terrible as it can 
possibly be made, and without intemnissiori. In this man- 
ner you are to be tormented till death shall come upon you 
from some other cause ; which, however, should never tak3 
place if we possessed power to prevent it !" And then 
suppose the judge should add : — « That is the penalty of 
the law under which you are now to suffer !'' 

I ask if ail New York — yea, all the nation, and the civi- 
lized world would not be horror-struck by such a decision I 
Would not all conclude the judge was insane, and ought 
to be immediately removed from orHce ? If he should at- 
tempt to justify himself, by showing that he had given a 
constitutional construction of the law of the State, would it 
not be thought that he was stark mad ? And if he should 
succeed in establishing his position of the correctness of his 
decision, would not the whole State be in arms to alter or 
abolish such laws ? and if they found that such a state of 
things was fastened upon them by some unalterable neces- 
sity, would not the State itself, with all its rich lands, b« 
abandoned by its inhabitants, as some Sodom and Gomor 
rah that was nigh unto destruction ? 

If the case I have supposed differs from that attribute' 
to God's law, and the administration under it — upon th? 
common theory of death signifying eternal conscious beim 
in undescribable misery, then I confess myself incapable of 
seeing the difference, except it be in one point, viz. : th« 
judge spoken of has not power to protract the suffering: 
of the condemned person beyond a limited period ; Go>: 
has almighty and irresistible power in punishing* 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL? 37 

If, as is contended, the greatest possible punishment is 
required by benevolence, to deter men from sin, why do we 
not see civilized nations adopting that principle in enacting 
their laws ? The fact is, the legislation of all nations who 
acknowledge the Bible, gives the lie to such a theory ! And 
how is it accounted for, I ask, that those nations, that are 
called " Christian nations," have so far modified their laws 
as to be at an almost infinite remove from those called sav- 
age ? Is it not because, though men have not in reality 
become Christians, yet the Bible has had such an influence 
on the mass of mind, that the conviction is almost univer- 
sal among them, that no " cruel or unusual punishments" 
shall be " inflicted ?" I ask again, if this fact .does not 
prove that the influence of the gospel is against the common 
theory of eternal life in misery ? Or in other words, do 
not the principles of the gospel, carried out in practical life, 
give the lie to the theory I oppose ? 

Punishment in some form, to transgressors, all admit is 
requisite to maintain government. But let us inquire what 
is the design of punishment ? It may be said to consist 
mainly in two particulars, viz : 1st. To prevent the recur- 
rence of crime on the part of the transgressor ; and 2d. To 
deter others from the commission of crime. 

Let me now ask, Is it necessary that the impenitent sin- 
ner should live a life of eternal conscious misery, to prevent 
the recurrence of sin on his part ? This will not be pre- 
tended by any one. So far from it, the advocates of the 
theory I oppose, maintain, that the sinner will be eternally 
sinning, and eternally being punished for those sins ; which, 
however, neither does nor can produce reformation ; nor, in 
fact, is it designed to. Upon the common theory, then, sin 
and the works of the devil never will be destroyed, and the 
punishment does not answer the end of punishment, in pre- 
venting the recurrence of crime ; for it will be eternally re- 
curring. But if the sinner is actually destroyed, and ceases 
to be, there is an effectual prevention of the recurrence of 
6in, on the part of the transgressor. 

If, then, the end of punishment is answered, so far as 
the sinner is concerned, by his utter destruction, and cannot 
be by the opposite theory, let us now inquire whether the 
4 



38 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



eternal conscious being of the sinner in torments is neces- 
sary to deter others from sin ? To suppose that it is, is to 
suppose that the inhabitants of Heaven are kept in subjec- 
tion to God, on the same principle that slave-holders keep 
their slaves to their toil, i, e., by the terror of the lash, or 
some other fearful torture. No such principle, I apprehend, 
will be needed in the presence of God and the Lamb — and 
that, too, after our state of trial is over for ever, and the 
righteous are crowned with eternal life, and made kings 
and priests unto God, to reign for ever and ever, filled with 
unmeasured consolation, and surrounded by immeasurable 
glory. 

Besides, if the wicked are all destroyed, and mingle no 
more with the righteous for ever, the greatest temptation to 
sin is removed. The past recollection of evil would, most 
likely, be all-sufficient to prevent sin, even on the supposi- 
tion that it were possible for temptation to arise, which I 
do not believe it will be, when the righteous dwell in the 
immediate presence of God and the Lamb, where there is 
fulness of joy and pleasure for ever more. Surely there can 
be no need, to persons thus situated, to listen to the groans 
of the damned, and gaze on their torments, to keep them 
in obedience. The thought, to me, is little, if any, short 
of blasphemy. 

But, the notion that benevolence requires the greatest pos- 
sible punishment to be inflicted, is expressly contradicted 
by the Bible. • Our Lord Jesus Christ informs us that some 
" shall be beaten with few stripes." Of course the greatest 
possible punishment is not inflicted, but only such as is ne- 
cessary to secure the honour of a violated law, and answer 
the end of government. 

It is said, " sin is an infinite evil, and therefore the sin- 
ner must have an infinite punishment." And I ask, if it 
may not be said, in an important sense, that that punish- 
ment, from which a sinner never recovers, is infinite ? But 
how is it proved that sin is an infinite evil, which is com- 
mitted by a finite being in time ? The answer is, it is com- 
mitted against an infinite God. I reply, that, upon the 
game principle, a punishment inflicted upon a finite being, 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL. 39 



in a limited time, is an infinite punishment, because inflict- 
ed by an infinite Being. 

Again, it is objected to my views, that "it is no punish- 
ment at all." "If," continues the objector, "the wicked 
are to be struck out of being, it 7 s quick over, and that is 
the end of it." 

In reply, I say — I do not know how long the work of 
utter destruction will be in being accomplished. We know, 
in this world, some men die instantly, with little pain going 
before ; whilst others linger in distress a long time, and 
then die in the most undescribable pain. So it may be in 
the " second death." Some sinners, for reasons known to 
the divine mind, and which may be developed at the day 
of judgment, may perish at once ; whilst others, for their 
greater wickedness, may endure protracted torments, with 
increased marks of the Almighty's displeasure, such as 
shall clearly develope the meaning of our Lord's words, 
that he « which knew his Lord's will, and prepared not 
himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten 
with many stripes," — -whilst " he that knew not, and did 
commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few ;" 
but in both cases it will result in their utter destruction, 
Here the principle is distinctly brought to view, of a differ- 
ence in the degree of torment that will be inflicted on th© 
finally impenitent. ✓ 

For example. A child, who has just arrived to the years 
of understanding, and has personally committed sin, dies 
impenitent. Is his punishment to be equal to that of a 
Voltaire ? The objector says, " No. The horror of Vol- 
taire will be the greatest." That is, he says, " The fire will 
be the same, but their worm will be different." But, if eter- 
nal conscious being in torment is the true doctrine, I ask, 
. what is it gives the horror itself its keenness and point, but 
the fact that the torment is to be without cessation of con- 
scious being ? 

It matters but little to me, as to the anguish I feel, whe- 
ther my little finger is burning or my whole frame, if it is 
certain that the anguish I endure is never to cease. The 
common notion of the punishment of the wicked, I con- 
ceive, makes in fact no distinction in the punishment, wh@- 



40 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



ther it be a child or an old sinner — a heathen or a sinner 
from a Christian land — a slave, brutalized by his master, 
and denied God's word, or that ungodly master himself. 
On the other hand, my view, whilst it admits that the result 
is the same to all, viz.: utter extinction of being, yet, the 
degrees of torment prior to that event and at the time in 
which it finally takes place, are various, according to the 
degrees of guilt of the transgressors, 

Henry, in his Commentary, says — " By the damnation 
of the wicked the justice of God will be eternally satisfy 
ing, but never satisfied." 

This doctrine is undoubtedly correct, on the supposition 
that the common theory is true, but it represents God as 
incapable of satisfying his justice, or as wanting in a dis- 
position to do so. Either of these positions, one would sup- 
pose, is sufficiently absurd to be rejected by a reflecting 
mind. 

The penalty of God's law is something to be inflicted, 
or it is not ; if it is not to be inflicted, then men may not 
be punished at all for their sins ; but if it is to be inflicted 
on the impenitent, then it cannot be eternal conscious be- 
ing in misery ; for in that case, it would only be inflictz??^ 
but never inflictsc?; indeed, in that way justice could not 
be said to be even satisfy i ng for that cannot be said to be 
satisfying that is never to be satisfied ; that is a plain con- 
tradiction. Could a man be said to be satisfying his hun- 
ger if it was impossible ever to satisfy it ? Or again, is the 
" grave" satisfyz?2g-, of which the wise man says, that it is 
« never satisfied ?" 

Benson outstrips Henry. So far from the justice of 
God making any approach towards satisfying itself, accord- 
ing to Benson, the sinner outstrips justice in the race. 
Speaking of the damned, he says : — " They must be per- 
petually swelling their enormous sum of guilt, and still 
running deeper, immensely deeper, in debt to divine and 
infinite justice, Hence, after the longest imaginable period, 
they will be so far from having discharged their debt — 
that they will find more due than when they first began to 
suffer." 

How much glory such a theory reflects upon the infinite 

\ 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL t 



41 



Gog, I leave others to judge. This same commentator says 
in another place—" Infinite justice arrests their guilty souis, 
and confines them in the dark prison of hell, till they have 
satisfied all its demands by their personal sufferings, which, 
alas ! they can never do." 

So, it seems, the Great and Infinite Being is perfectly in- 
capable of obtaining satisfaction to his justice ! But I will 
not dwell upon this point. 

I will call your attention to one thought more before I 
close this discourse. Are we to suppose that the Creator 
of all men will inflict a punishment on men of which he 
has given them no intimation ? For example — wicked 
men who have not revelation to unfold the invisible world. 
Are we to believe that they are to be punished with eternal 
conscious being in undescribable torments, of which they 
had never heard ? 

They have no intimation of eternal conscious being in 
misery. They know there is misery, for they experience 
it; but they have always seen misery terminate in death. 
Of misery followed by death, they have something more 
than intimation; but of eternal life in misery they can. 
have no idea. . No — nor can we, who have that doctrine 
taught us by ministers. We can have no idea of a life 
of misery that never results in death. We may have illus- 
trations given us, but they cannot touch it, and no finite 
mind can have any conception of it ; this is evident from 
the illustrations used to attempt to describe it 5 for example 
— Benson, after painting the. unutterable miseries of 
the damned, till his own soul chills with horror, and his 
" heart bleeds," thus attempts to describe the duration of 
that misery : 

" Number the stars in the firmament, the drops of rain, 
sand on the seashore ; and when thou hast finished the cal- 
culation, sit down and number up the ages of woe. Let 
every star, every drop, every grain of sand, represent one 
million of tormenting ages. And know that as many more 
millions still remain behind, and yet as many more behind 
these, and so on without end." 

Now I ask if any definite idea is conveyed to the mind 
by such an illustration ? And if not, what influence can 
4* 



42 



BIBLE EXAMINES. 



it have upon him ? If it produces any action, it must be 
as lacking in definiteness as the ideas that possess the 
mind. 

Tell a man of something, concerning which he can form 
a definite idea, and it must have more influence upon him 
Tell him he is dying, perishing — really, actually, literally, 
not figuratively perishing : of that he can form some idea, 
and hence, it will be more likely to move him to right ac- 
tion, than that of which he can have no such definite know- 
ledge. 

Concluding Rem ares. 

I have endeavoured to establish the position, that men 
are perishing ; in other words, that they are labouring un- 
der a fatal disease, that will result in death, or an utter ex- 
termination of being, unless it is removed. All men are 
dying. The death to which they are hastening is the effect 
of sin, and sin is the transgression of the law of their mo- 
ral nature, which will as certainly result in the death of 
the soul, as the violation of the law of our physical nature 
will result in the death of our body, unless that order can 
be restored which has been interrupted by these violations. 

In this view of the subject, we have a beautiful and for- 
cible parallel between the disorders of the body and those 
of the soul — and between the attempts to heal the body, 
and the attempts to heal the soul, or save it alive. There- 
are, it is true, quacks in both. I will not stop now to de- 
termine who they are in either case ; my business is to 
show unto men their disease and danger, or their sins, and 
the consequences to which they lead ; and then point them 
to the sure, the faithful, the kind and glorious Physician, 
the Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. He 
came down from Heaven, and entered our moral graveyard, 
where souls are dving.ani proclaimed Life — "ETERNAL 
LIFE." 

He calls us to believe in him. And what does this faith 
imply } It implies, of course, that we feel we a^e morally 
diseased and dyinz. No man would ask or receive the aid 
of a physician who felt himself whole ; for u the whole 
need not a physician, but they that are sick." 



AEE TEE WICKED IMMORTAL 1 



43 



Again, faith in Christ, the great Physician, implies con- 
fidence in his ability to heal, or save the soul alive. No 
man employs a physician in whose skill he has no confi- 
dence. When a sick man finds one in whom he has per- 
fect confidence, he shows his faith in him something like 
this : " Doctor," he says, " I know yon are a skilful prac- 
titioner, and I believe you perfectly understand my disor- 
der, and I wish you to undertake for me — I wish to put 
myself entirely under your care." "But," the doctor re- 
plies, " I cannot heal you, unless you will strictly follow 
my directions ; no medicine, however valuable, and no phy- 
sician, however skilful, can restore health, and prolong life, 
if you persist in the violation of the laws of your physical 
nature ; you must therefore determine to give yourself en- 
tirely up to follow my directions, or you must die ; you can 
have your choice." 

Xow, if the man consents to do this, he acts faith in that 
physician ; and when he gets well, he will doubtless give 
the doctor all the credit of his cure, and be very likely to 
recommend him to others. Now, that is faith, active faith. 
Go to Christ, the soulV Physician, in the same way, and 
your sins, which are the moral disease, will be removed, and 
your perishing, dying souls will be made alive— .yes, have 
life, and live eternally : but. if you refuse the great Physi- 
cian, your souls must die. — die past hope, past recovery — 
die under an awful weight of guilt — die eternally. But 
you do not die without a mighty effort on the part of Christ 
and his followers, to save you. Jesus wept over dying men 
when here on earth ; and with all the compassion of the 
Son of God, in the most tender pity he said, in the lan- 
guage of my text : **Ye will not come unto me that ye 
might have life." — Shall the Saviour make this lamentation 



over any of you ? O, come to Christ and live. 



44 



BIBLE EXAMINEE. 



FOURTH DISCOURSE. 

" Prove all things ; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thes. v. 21. 

" To " prove," in the sense of the text, signifies " to try 
— to bring to the test." The apostle was far from adopting 
the theory of some, in the present day, who seem to think 
it evidence that a man is a heretic if he presumes to exam- 
ine for himself with regard to the truth of those theories 
which men, who have been in reputation for wisdom and 
piety, have seen fit to baptize as the true faith. They may 
have seen the truth clearly, or they may not. Whether 
they have or not, it does not release us from the obligation 
cf proving ell things for ourselves. Not to do this, we 
might nearly as well have been constituted idiots ; as, in 
point of fact, we make ourselves so, by taking for truth, 
without investigation, the opinions of fallible men. 

We are not indeed to despise helps in our investigations : 
but every thing is to be brought to the test — the infallible 
word of God. 

Nor are we to allow ourselves to think, as some seem to 
maintain, that we are to exercise a blind faith in a theory, 
however contrary to reason. Reason, it is true, cannot find 
out God, nor the things of God, unaided. — Hence God has 
been pleased to give us revelation ; and that revelation is 
made to man's reason, or understanding. To talk to a man 
about believing that which is contrary to his reason, is the 
most consummate folly. Is it possible for a man to believe 
that two and two make six ? or that unequal things are 
exactly equal ? To propose such absurdities for belief is to 
attempt to annihilate all tests of truth, and leave a man to 
wander in the mazes of conjecture. We hardly know which 
to pity most, the man who attempts such a work, or those 
who are duped by it. 

The fact is — God appeals to man's reason. " Come now 
and let us reason together, saith the Lord." The disciples 
"communed together, and reasoned." See Luke 24: 15 
Acts 17 : 2, we are told, "Paul, as his manner was — 



AKE THE WICKED IMMOETAL ? 



45 



reasoned with them out of the Scriptures." And 18 chap. 
4 v., " He reasoned in the synagogues every Sabbath, and 
persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Before Felix he 
« reasoned" till his royal hearer " trembled." 

We may rest assured, then, that God has given us our 
reason to be used ; and we are commanded to be ready to 
give a reason of the hope that is in us. 

There may be many truths that reason can never find 
put ; hence the necessity of revelation ; but revelation can 
contain nothing contrary to reason— that is impossible ; for, 
1 repeat it, it would be no revelation at all, but darkness 
and obscurity itself. Reason then occupies an important 
place. It is its province to judge of the truth of that which 
professes to be a revelation ; if that professed revelation is 
clearly contrary to reason, no man can credit it but a rank 
fanatic : It is to confound truth and falsehood, and take 
away all power of discriminating between them. 

Reason, however, is to be allowed to do her work un^ 
trammeled. Reason may be blinded. There is no way in 
which it is so likely to be perverted as by the love of sin. 
If men are in love with sin, and are determined to persist 
in it, they may expect to reason incorrect^ — though their 
decisions, in that case, can hardly be said to be the voice of 
reason ; it is rather the voice of passion, or appetite ; for, 
even in such cases, the strife of reason, to be heard, is easily 
discovered, if a man will observe the workings of his own 
mind. But, our Saviour has decided that the man who 
" will do" the will of God, L e. has a purpose, or determi- 
nation, to do that will, wherever it may lead him, "he shall 
know of the doctrine." — Before reasoning, then, we should 
see to it that w r e have that purpose : else we may go astray. 

With these remarks, I proceed to a further examination 
of objections to the theory I advocate. If those objection? 
are reasonable, and the unreasonableness of them cannot be 
shown, then you are bound to " hold" them " fast," as 
<* good." If they are to your mind shown to be without 
reason, as well as without Scripture authority, you are 
equally bound to give them up. 



46 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



Examination of Objections Continued. 

It is said, " the fathers believed in the endless torments 
of the wicked." In reply, I remark, Our Lord and Master 
has prohibited my calling any man father. But, if the fa- 
thers, as they are called, did believe that doctrine, they 
learned it from the Bible, or they did not. If they learned 
it there, so can we. If they did not learn it from the Bible, 
then their testimony is of no w r eight. It may have been 
an error that early got into the. Church, like many others. 

Mosheim, in his Church History, tells us, as early as the 
third century, that the defenders of Christianity, in their 
controversies, " degenerated much from primitive simpli- 
city," and that the maxim which asserted the innocence of 
defending truth by artifice and falsehood, « contributed" to 
this degeneracy. And he adds : — 

"This disingenuous and vicious method of surprising 
their adversaries by artifice, and striking them down, as it 
were, by lies and fictions, produced, among other disagree- 
able effects, a great number of books, which were falsely 
attributed to certain great men, in order to give these spu- 
rious productions more credit and weight; for, as the 
greatest part of mankind are less governed by reason than 
authority, and prefer in many cases, the decisions of falli- 
ble mortals to the unerring dictates of the divine word, the 
disputants, of whom we are speaking, thought they could 
not serve the truth more effectually than by opposing illus- 
trious names, and respectable authorities to the attacks of 
its adversaries." 

This practice spoken of by Mosheim, increased as the 
darker ages rolled on ; and through these Hark ages, what 
there are of the writings of the " fathers" have come down 
to us. It is a truth, also, that the practice of corrupting 
the simplicity of the apostolic doctrine was commenced 
much earlier than the third century. Enfield, in his phi- 
losophy, says : " The first witness of Christianity had 
scarcely left the world when" this work began. Some of 
the "fathers" seemed intent on uniting heathen philosophy 
with Christianity, and early commenced the practice of 
clothing the doctrines of religion in an allegorical dress. 



AEE THE WICKED IMMORTAL ? 



47 



You may judge, what, dependence can be placed upon 
the " fathers" in settling what is Bible truth, 

Again it is said, — -The Jews held the doctrine of eternal 
conscious being in torments. This is proved, net from their 
Scriptures, the place where it should be found, if true, but 
from the writings of Josephus. 

The same may be urged against the infallibility of some 
things found in Josephus, as in the " fathers *' for it is cer- 
tain, as I have before shown, that there was a large class 
among the Jews that did not believe it ; viz. the Sadducees, 
who did not believe in the existence .of spirits at all, and of 
course could not have held to their eternal conscious being 
in torments. 

But what if the Jews did believe it ? They believed too 
that the Messiah would set up a temporal kingdom ; and 
" many other such like" foolish things. Are we to go to 
their ignorance and superstition to learn the knowledge of 
the Most High ? The fact is, the Jewish Scriptures, the 
Old Testament, no where teach that doctrine. 

My attention will be called to Isa. S3 : 14. " Who 
among us shall dwell with devouring fire ? who among us 
shall dwell with everlasting burnings ?" This looks the 
most like teaching that doctrine of any thing in the Old 
Testament. But the text itself refutes the theory it is 
brought to prove ; for it tells us, expressly, the fire is a 
devouring fire. What is the meaning of the term " devour ?" 
According to Walker, it signifies " To eat up" — " to con- 
sume" — " to annihilate" Surely then, my opponents gain 
nothing from this text, for it is wholly in my favour. 

Besides, such questions often imply the impossibility of 
a thing ; e. g. " How shall we escape if we neglect so great 
salvation ?" i. e. There is no escape. So — " Who shall 
dwell with devouring fire V implies the impossibility of 
any person doing it, as it will utterly destroy, or consume 
him. I will give the objector one text from the Old Tes- 
tament, that he may weigh along with this. It is Ps. 92 : 
7, " When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all 
the workers of iniquity do flourish ; it is that they shall be 
DESTROYED FOREVER." I have said, the Jewish 
Sciiptures no where teach the common theory ; so far from 



48 BIBLE EXAMINER. 

ft, they wind up with the most solemn declaration, calling 
the attention of all men to the fact, " Behold, the day 
cometh that shall burn as an oven : and all the proud, yea, 
all that do wickedly, shall be stubble ; and the day that 
cometh shall h>urn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it 
shall leave them neither root nor branch." 

But suppose I were to admit, that the Jews did hold the 
doctrine of endless being in misery, as my opponents say : 
what then ? Why, say they, that is strong evidence it must 
be true ; because, if it had not been, the Saviour and his 
apostles would have taught the contrary. 

I reply, first : Many of the Jews believed in the pre- 
evistent state of souls : or, their existence in some other 
body prior to those they now inhabit. It was owing to this 
idea, that we find the disciples of our Lord, in John 9 : 2. 
asking him, « Who did sin, this man or bis parents, that 
he was bom blind ?" This question shows, that even the 
apostles had imbibed the notion common among the Jews 
at that time. They supposed that in some previous state 
he might have sinned ; and hence, as a judgment, was born 
blind. Does not the same reasoning which says, the Jews 
believed in the eternal conscious being of the wicked in 
misery, and therefore it must be true, because the Saviour 
did not refute it, prove that the doctrine of the transmigra- 
tion of souls is true, because the Jews believed it, and our 
Saviour did not refute it \ 

But again, — I maintain, that Christ and his apostles did 
teach the contrary of endless being in misery ; and that, 
as clear as language could make it ; and I think I have al- 
ready shown this ; but I will now say, I have read the New 
Testament carefully through, and noted down every text 
♦hat speaks of the final destiny of the wicked ; or that can 
be construed as referring to it. Let us look at these texts 
and see if any language could well express more clearh 
surd forcibly, the utter extirpation of the wicked. 

Testixoxy of the New Testaxext. 

1. John the Baptist. Matt. 3 : 10— '< Every tree that 
bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into 
tkt fire:' it appears to me — 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL 1 49 

This language imports, clearly, an utter extinction of 
being, and nothing short. Again, in the 12th verse, John 
says of Christ — " He will burn up the chaff with unquench- 
able fire." Here the language denotes nothing less than 
the previous : and is, most clearly, a reference to the words 
of the Lord by Malachi, chap. 4:1. John 3 : 36, "He 
that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life : he that be- 
lieveth not the Son shall not see life." 

John, then, does not teach the common notion of eternal 
conscious being in torments, but utter destruction of being 
if there is any meaning in language. If, then, the Jews 
did hold the doctrine of endless being in misery, or the im- 
mortality of the wicked, as some pretend, John's preach- 
ing was directly calculated to overthrow it. The next wit- 
ness is, 

2. Jesus Christ, our Lord. Matt. 5 : 29, 30— » For it 
is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, 
and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." Let 
it be kept in mind that the term perish, primarily, signifies 
" to cease to have existence." ISow, I ask the candid, if 
the one member here is not, by our Lord, put in opposition 
to the whole body ? and if so, is not the sense of this pas- 
sage expressed thus — if one member is diseased it will 
cause the whole body to perish unless that member is re- 
moved ; better, therefore, that one member should be cut off 
and perish than that the whole body perish. 

But, again, Matt. 7 : 13, 14 — •• Broad is the way that 
leadeth to destruction, and man} ..±ere be that go in thereat ; 
because strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth 
unto life." 

Here, as destruction is put in opposition to life, and sig- 
nifies to be consumed ; or, as Walker says, "In theology, 
eternal death," it cannot mean eternal life in misery, but a 
" ceasing to be ;" unless we would confound the use of all 
language, and adopt the notion, that the common people 
cannot understand the Bible, and therefore it ought not to 
be put into their hands. In fact, have we not come to that 
pass already ? How much short of this is it, when we are 
told, at least indirectly, that the language of the Scriptures 
5 



50 BIBLE EXAMINER. 

is so figurative that we*are not to give the obvious and lite- 
ral sense cf the words, as in reading other books ? 

But let us hear our Saviour further : Matt. 7 : 19 — 
" Every tree that bringeth forth not good fruit is hewn 
down and cast into the fire." The same idea and the same 
language as that used by John the Baptist. I ask if it im- 
ports any thing short of utter destruction ? 

Matt. 10 : 28 — " Fear not them which kill the body but 
are not able to kill the soul ; but rather fear him who is 
able to destroy both soul and body in hell." I ask if this 
language does not clearly imply, that God is able to kill the 
soul ? and does it not as clearly affirm, that he will kill or 
destroy utterly the wicked ? I have no fear for the answer 
from the candid and unprejudiced. 

Once more ; Matt, xiii : 40, 50 — " As therefore the tares 
are gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the 
end of this world : the angels shall come forth and sever 
the w r icked from among the just ; and shall cast them into 
the furnace of fire ; there shall be weeping and gnashing of 
teeth." How is it possible for words more clearly to de- 
note an utter destruction of being, accompanied with the 
most bitter anguish ? How r can these words be tortured to 
mean eternal conscious being ? 

Matt, xvi : 25, 28 — f* Whosoever will save his life shall 
lose it" &c. " For what is a man profited if he shall gain 
the whole world and lose his own soul ?" 

Here is no idea of eternal conscious being, or a miserable 
eternal life : but a loss of life, of the soul itself. It could 
not be a loss of the soul, if the soul continues in being. No, 
says the objector, it means loss of happiness to the soul. I 
reply, a loss of happiness is one thing, and the loss of the 
soul is another and a very different thing. Suppose I should 
interpret the expression, " Whoever will save his life shall 
lose it," to signify that the person who seeks to save his life 
shall lose, not his life, but the happiness of it ! Would not 
the objector himself call it a perversion of the Scriptures ? 
But it is no more a perversion than for him to say, the los3 
of the soul means only the loss of its happiness. 

Again, Matt, xviii : S. 9 — " Cut off thy hand ; pluck out 
thine eye if' 7 they " cause thee to offend," for " it is bettei 



ARE- THE WICKED IMMORTAL? 51 



for thee to enter into life halt or maimed," or « with one 
eye, than to be cast into everlasting' 7 or " hell fire.*' 

Here the punishment is the opposite of life, which it could 
not be, if the wicked are to have endless life or eternal con- 
scious being. 

Thus then we fail to find, in the language of our blessed 
Lord, the doctrine of eternal conscious being in torments : 
but we do find that the punishment of the wicked will re- 
sult in the loss of life ; preceded by sufferings more or less 
protracted^; set forth as the anguish fire produces on this 
corporeal system, and by the " wailing and gnashing of 
teeth." We find, then, if I mistake not, no countenance to 
the supposed Jewish notion of eternal conscious being in 
misery. 

Let us now examine, 

3. Peter's Testimony. Acts iii : 23 — « Every soul which 
will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among 
the people." This language cannot relate to a destruction 
in this world, nor, as some suppose, to l 'iolerit destruction 
from this world, unless it can be shown that all who have 
refused to hear Christ have been thus destroyed. But this 
cannot be done ; for, the unbelieving Jews have existed on 
earth to this day. It must therefore relate to a destruction 
yet future. 

Acts viii : 20 — " Thy money perish with thee." Again. 
2 Peter, ii : 1 — -" Bring upon themselves swift destruction." 
Also, 12th verse — "These as natural brute beasts, made tc 
be taken and destroyed, shall utterly perish." This, cer- 
tainly, does not look like teaching the common theory, tha'; 
the wicked are immortal ; and I know not how any form 
of expression could more forcibly teach the utter extermi* 
nation of the w 7 icked. At the 17th verse, he says of cer- 
tain wicked characters, "To whom the mist of darkness is 
reserved forever." This expression, to my mind, carries 
the idea of a total destruction ; as light is sometimes put 
for life in the Scriptures ; as, for example, "' the life was 
the light of man," , so darkness is put for death ; and the 
" mist of darkness forever," I conceive, implies an utter 
extinction of being. 

But again, 3d chap. — "The heavens and earth— -are 



52 



EIELE EXAMUfEE. 



reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdi 
Hon of ungodly men." M Perdition/' according to Walker, 
signifies " Destruction — Ruin — Death — Loss — Eternal 
Death.'' Which of these definitions favours the common 
theory of eternal conscious being ? 

Again at the 9th verse Peter says: "The Lord is not 
willing that any should p&i&k? &e. Lastly he tells us, 
at the 16th verse, that some " wrest the Scriptures to their 
own destruction*' 

Thus I have noticed every passage found in Peters testi- 
mony concerning the final destiny of wicked men ; and I 
ask my candid hearers, if it were not for the tiammels 
thrown around our minds by tradition, if we should ever 
give any other interpretation to these texts than the plain 
obvious one of destruction of being? So it seems to me. 
I come to — 

4. James 1 Testimony. Let us now hear what he has to 
say . 1st chap. 15th verse, he says : " Sin when it is finished 
brin geth forth death and again, 5th chap. 20th verse, he 
says : 14 He which converteth the sinner from the error of 
his way shall save a soul from death. 11 How can a man in 
his senses maintain that the soul is "deathless," with such 
testimony before his eyes ? And why should we submit to 
this misllfying the plain language of the Holy Spirit to keep 
an old theory alive, which cannot live in the light of a literal 
construction of scripture language, and when no good 
reason can be given for departing from the literal meaning ? 

5. John's Testimony. 1st John 2 : 17. "The world 
passeth away and the lusts thereof ; but he that doeth the 
will of God abideth forever.' 1 The inference is irresistible, 
that the wicked will not abide forever. 

Again— Rev. 20 : 14, 15. "And death and hell were 
cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And 
whosoever was not found written in the booh of life was 
cast into the lake of fire" : i. e. they experience the pains 
of the second death, a death of soul and body, or of the 
whole man : and this because they would not come unto 
Christ that they " might have Hfe " 

Let us hear this apostle once more. Rev. 21 : S. But 
the fearful and unbelieving, and the abominable, and mur- 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL ? 



53 



lerers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolators, and 
all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with 
fire and brimstone ,• which is the second death." 

Other passages in Rev. supposed to refer to the final 
punishment of the wicked, I have noticed in another place. 
I leave you to judge to which theory, that of endless being, 
or destruction of being, the testimony of John belongs. 

6. Jude's Testimony. Sixth verse, he says : « The 
angels which kept not their first estate, he hath reserved in 
everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of 
the great day." Here we have an account of sinning an- 
gels, and learn that they are " reserved ;" but for what are 
they reserved ? First — -for judgment; i. e. to be judged ; 
and the fair inference is, they are after that to receive their 
punishment, according to the declaration of Peter, that 
" God knoweth how to reserve the unjust unto the day of 
judgment to be punished." I suppose it will be admitted 
by all that the fallen angels are now tormented ; but that 
is not the punishment they are to have for their sins, though 
it is a consequence of their sins. What, then, is to be their 
punishment ? Let them speak for themselves. " Art thou 
come to destroy us ?" said they to him of whom the apostle 
says to the Hebrews, he shall " destroy him who hath the 
power of death, that is the devil." But if the testimony of 
the devils, nor that of the apostle are sufrieient, then hear 
that of the " Lord God" himself. Addressing the old ser- 
pent, the devil, he said : " The seed of the woman shall 
bruise thy head l/' an expression so familiar to all, that 1 
hardly need add, that no language could more forcibly point 
out the utter destruction of the devil. 

Again — Jude, speaking of certain wicked characters, says, 
— " Wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of 
darkness forever." The figure here used denotes an utter, 
total, and eternal obscuration, or disappearing. — No lan- 
guage scarcely could be conceived of, that would more for- 
cibly denote the utter destruction of the wicked — of their 
being itself, so that they appear no more forever. 

7. Testimony of Paul. I have already said, we have 
not a particle of evidence in the Acts of the Apostles of the 
truth of the common theory of the eternal conscious being 

5* 



54 BIBLE EXAMINER. 

of the wicked, the very place where we should expect to 
find it, if any where in the Bible, hecause the Apostles ad- 
dressed the most wicked men ; but we hear Paul saying to 
the wicked Jews — « Seeing ye judge yourselves unworthy 
of everlasting life." Not everlasting happiness, or happy 
life ; but simply life. And the same wicked characters he 
cautions to beware lest they " perish." Why did he not 
thunder in their ears, eternal conscious being in torments, 
if he believed it ? Surely the subjects he addressed were as 
tit for such a state as any men well could be ; for they " con- 
tradicted and blasphemed." But so far as punishment was 
concerned, the apostle seems to have had no stronger lan- 
guage than " perish." 

Rom. 1 : 32 — The apostle says, of certain wicked char- 
acters — « They which commit such things are worthy ot 
death." And in the second chapter, after speaking of the 
result of seeking for honour, and glory, and immortality, 
— viz : eternal life, he adds — As many as have sinned 
without law shall perish without law — in the day God shall 
judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ. Here the time 
and nature of the punishment of a certain class of sinners 
is clearly pointed out : and. the language is directly opposed 
to the common notion of eternal conscious being. 

Again — Rom. 6 : 21 — 23 — " For the end of these things 
is death. But now being made free from sin — ye have your 
fruit unto holiness, and the end, everlasting life. For the 
wages of sin is death : but the gift of God is eternal life, 
through Jesus Christ." Here, then, the apostle teaches the 
opposite of the common theory — and denounces death upon 
them. How strange he had not told them, they had " death- 
less spirits !" What force there must have been in his 
preaching in that case ! ! 

Rom. 8 : 13 — The apostle says — "If ye live after the 
flesh ye shall die? Again, — " Who shall deliver me from 
the bod} r of this death . ? " And again — " To be carnally 
minded is death " and at the ninth chapter, he speaks of 
"vessels of wrath fitted to destruction /' and 14th chapter, 
15 and 20, he says — "Destroy not him with thy meat for 
whom Christ died. For meat destroy not the work cf 
God/' 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL? 



55 



Let us now look into the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 
1st chapter, 18th verse — " For the preaching of the cross iS 
;| to them that perish, foolishness." 3d chapter, 17th verse,. 
— " If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God 
destroy" 8 th chapter, 11th v. — " Through thy knowledge 
'f shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died ;" and 
15th chapter, IS v. — "Then they that are fallen asleep in 
Christ are perished"— if Christ be not risen ; and 2d Corth, 
2d chapter 15 — 16 v. — "For we are unto God a sweet 
| savor of Christ in them that are saved and in them that 
iL perish. To the one we are a savor of death unto death ; 
and to the other the savor of life unto life" Can any 
thing be plainer ? Who would ever dream that the apostle 
meant, by such language, eternal conscious being to the 
i wicked, if he had not been creedized into it ? 

Gal. 6 : 8 — " He that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh 
reap corruption — (not immortality) but he that soweth to 
' the spirit shall of the spirit reap life everlasting." 

Phil. 1 : 2S — " Which is to them an evident token of 
perdition" and 3d : 19 — " Whose end is destruction" 

i Thess. 5 : 3 — " Sudden destruction cometh upon them 
— and they shall not escape." 

% Thess. 1 : 8, 9 — " W T ho shall be punished with ever- 
lasting destruction from the presence of the Lord," &c. 2 
Thess. 2 : 10 — " In them that perish" Hebrews 6 : 8 — 
" That which beareth thorns and briars is nigh unto curs- 
|j ; ing, whose end is to be burned" Is there any thing left 
of thorns and briars when they are burned ? Tenth chap 
I 26 to 39 v. — "Fiery indignation which shall devour the 
adversaries," &c. " We are not of them that draw back 
unto perdition ; but of them that believe to the saving of 
the soul." 

This closes up the apostle's testimony ; and it is aston- 
j ishing to me that I ever believed the common notion of 
eternal conscious being of the wicked. In the language I 
have quoted, is there not a sufficient refutation of that no- 
tion, even if the Jews did hold it, as some pretend } I 
believe I have now gone through with an examination of 
every text in the New Testament that directly relates to 
the subject, except a few which are parallel to those I have 



56 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



examined in Matthew, and therefore need not, at present, be 
taken up. 

A few days since, a minister of the gospel, who has stu- 
died the Scriptures with unusual attention, said to me — 
" If the Apostle Paul believed in the destruction of the 
wicked, why did he not preach it V r I replied — he did 
preach it ; and he never preached any other doctrine. I 
then read to him every passage in the Bible where Paul 
speaks in reference to the destiny of the wicked. He 
seemed astonished to hear nothing in direct support of the 
common theory, and appeared to feel unable to make a reply. 
That minister has since embraced the doctrine here advo- 
cated. 

Concluding Rexarks. 

Thus, we see, God has set life and death before us — 
eternal life and eternal destruction. We are called upon to 
choose life. We are moral beings, and therefore free agents 
— free to choose life, or death. Not to be thus free, we 
should be mere machines ; and all the commands, invita- 
tions, and exhortations, as well as the warnings and threat- 
enings of God, would be but mockery. God calls, invites, 
commands, expostulates, entreats, and warns ; but God can- 
not compel a man to turn from death, without destroying 
man's moral agency, which would be, in fact, to wrcman 
man, and make him as incapable of happiness as any other 
mere machine. No, man must turn and live, or he will 
pass on and die, — die because he would not have life ; — die 
because he is unfit for any purpose of life — wholly disquali- 
fied for the employments of life. By sin and unholiness, 
he is morally as incapable of answering any useful purpose 
in the holy service of God, as a man with some physical 
disease is disqualified for the active duties of this life. And 
the sinner, persisting in the course of sin and death, will 
as certainly pass the period of being restored, and when 
death to his soul must be the result, as a man with a fatal 
disorder will certainly, by neglecting proper medical aid, 
pass the period when death can be arrested. And if you 
would think the man unwise, and acting insanely, that pro- 
crastinates, and puts off application to a proper remedy in 



ARE THE WICKED I3I3TORTAL ? 57 



such a physical disorder, how much more is every careless 
and dying sinner chargeable with folly and madness, who 
delays applying to Christ, the soul's Physician.! Every day 
increases the danger; and every day the moral disease is 
increasing in malignity — every day is bringing the sinner 
nearer to that point, which, when once past, there is no 
recovery — destruction and death must follow, 

Let none, then, delay any longer : — God is now calling 
— " look unto me and live." The Lord Jesus Christ is 
stretching forth his hands, and saying, — " This is that bread 
which earn e down from heaven, that a man might eat there- 
of and not die." " Whosoever drinketh the water tha** I 
shall give him" — it " shall be in him a well of water spring- 
ing up into everlasting life." 

Men, for the health of their bodies, will travel far, visit 
mineral springs, pay immense sums of money, and feel 
they are bound to do it, to prolong life, and restore health. 
Shall they not take as much pains about, and care of their 
souls, which may have eternal life,— soul and body glorified 
together, and made immortal, but which are now dying — 
perishing — hastening to utter destruction ? 

I beseech you, my dying fellow men, hasten to Christ, 
who only has eternal life to give — believe in him, and trust 
in his power and skill to make alive ; abide by his direc- 
tions — • follow him. Remember no man can come to the 
Father but by Christ. There is no other way of salvation 
or eternal life, but by the Son of God alone. All other 
physicians and remedies are of no value. If you stay away 
you die. O, come to Christ and live. 



FIFTH DISCOURSE. 

"These were more noble than those of Thessalonica, in that ther re- 
ceived the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures 
daily whether these things were so." — Acts xvii. 11. 

Paul and Silas were persecuted at Thessalonica, for the 
doctrine they preached, and had to leave that place. The 
Thessalonians seemed to think it was no matter what Scrip- 



53 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



ture proof the Apostles could present in defence of their 
position ; that question they would not examine. It was 
enough for them to know it was turning " the world upside 
down," bringing something to their ears that differed from 
their long established ways of thinking ; that was not to be 
endured at all ; hence what they lacked in reason and argu- 
ment, they made up in contempt of these disturbers of the 
established order that existed among them ; and they re- 
jected the Apostles without giving the subject an examina- 
tion. Not so the Bereans — they first heard — then examined 
the Scriptures to see whether what they heard was in ac- 
cordance with the sure rule and test by which all theories 
are to be tried. They did not go to their creeds — articles 
of faith — nor doctors even, but to the Scriptures themselves, 
— and this they did " daily." No wonder inspiration should 
call them " noble." They manifested a noble and praise- 
worthy spirit : and it is left on record for our learning. 
Happy are we, if we act on the same principles. 

No man is worthy the name of a minister of Jesus Christ 
who asks his hearers to receive what he says for truth, 
without being satisfied, by a personal study of the Scrip- 
tures, that it is truth. 

With these remarks, I now proceed to a further exami- 
nation of objections to the theory that the finally impeni- 
tent will be utterly destroyed, or rooted out of the universe 
of God. 

Further Objections Considered. 

It is said, because " the destruction of the wicked is not 
so terrible as interminable existence in misery, that there- 
fore it does not present an adequate motive for repentance, 
but diminishes the proper restraints of sin." 

I have already answered, in part, this objection ; but, I 
would here inquire — does not the threatening of the loss of 
all the glory of immortality, and enduring torments. which 
shall result in the total extermination of soul and body, pre- 
sent a sufficient appeal to the fears of men, if they can be 
moved by that principle at all ? If the loss of all the glo- 
rious displays of God's wisdom, power, and love, that will 
be eternally unfolding, in eternal life, together with the ac- 



ARE THE WICKED IM3I0ETAL ? 



59 



toil sufferings and torments the sinner will endure, prior 
to his utter destruction, are not motives sufficient to lead to 
repentance, the mind must be too stupid to be moved by the 
idea of endless torments. Besides, we know -that the greater 
po/tion of men have remained impenitent under the preach- 
ing of the theory I oppose : and I here repeat what I have 
before said, that I solemnly believe the natural tendency of 
that theory is to make men infidels instead of Christians : 
they cannot credit it ; and, thinking that it is taught In the 
Bible, they reject revelation altogether. 

Another objection, if may be proper I should here notice, 
is, it is said, upon the theory I advocate, " The punishment 
God has threatened is, that he will put an end to the mise- 
ries of the wicked." I answer — -It is no such thing. It is 
not that he will put an end to their miseries, but to their 
being, and of course, to all hope of life and happiness. 
That an end of conscious misery is necessarily implied, I 
admit ; but that is no part of the threatening. Let the 
objector apply his argument to the law which says, the man 
who commits murder shall die ; i. e. says the objector, the 
law threatens, to put an end to the murderer's remorse and 
misery ! 

I have already noticed that one of the arguments that 
the soul is immortal is, that all men desire immortality 
Yet the same persons tell us, that some men had much 
rather die than to have the very thing the} 7 desire, viz. im- 
mortality. That men do desire immortality I have not 
denied 5 but if they do, they cannot at the same time desire 
death. Man loves life, and prefers it to death. " All that 
a man hath will he give for his life," is a truth, though 
uttered by Satan. Men at present can be but little affected 
by the common theory of endless being in misery, because, 
it is utterly impossible for any finite mind to have any 
clear idea of such a punishment. Destruction of being, 
or death, is something that strikes the senses, and reaches, 
the understandings of men, and must therefore have more 
present influence on men's' minds, in leading them to for- 
eake sin, than that of which they can have no clear con- 
ceptions. 

Besides, so long as you allow that man's being is eternal, 



60 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



you cannot divest his mind of the idea, though it may he 
secretly indulged, that somehow he shall escape from that 
punishment ; even though he cannot at present give any 
definite idea how it is to be done. Hence multitudes plunge, 
into the doctrine of restorationism. 

Some tell us that »« spiritual death is the penalty of the 
law." I answer, the phrase " spiritual death" is not found 
in the Bible ; and in the manner it is usually employed, I 
am satisfied it tends rather to confusion in the mind than 
the conveying of any definite idea. It is intended, I sup- 
pose, to convey the sentiment that impenitent men are un- 
holy, and have no rational conceptions of God, and the 
things of God. But this sentiment is capable of being ex- 
pressed in language less obscure and equivocal. Men are 
said, in Bible language, to be unholy, sensual, carnally- 
minded, not having the knowledge of God, earthly, devilish, 
lovers of their own selves, proud, lovers of the world, hate- 
ful, and hating one another, &c. &c. 

All these expressions are sufficiently definite to be under- 
stood 5 but " spiritual death," if it means anything, signi- 
fies something analogous to the death of the body. By bodily 
death, if I may employ that expression, we mean that the 
body ceases all action, sense, and life. Then, if spiritual 
death is analogous, it must mean that the spirit ceases all 
action, sense, and life. In that sense, I have no objection 
to admitting that it is the penalty of the law. That penalty 
is not yet inflicted however. B j.t if the term is employed 
in any other sense to signify the penalty of the law, I de- 
mand the proof. Where is it ? Where? 

If it be said, "the death threatened to Adam must be a 
spiritual death, as it was to take place in the day he eat the 
forbidden fruit," I reply, if the penalty was spiritual death, 
in the sense the objector means, and if the penalty, as he 
understands it, was executed in the literal day that Adam 
eat that fruit, then the death of the body and the " wrath to 
come" was no part of the penalty, as neither of those events 
took place till r 3arly a thousand years after. 

The penalty was not, "In the day thou eatest thereof 
thou shalt die :" but as the Hebrew language has it — " dy 
ing thou shalt die." That very day the promise of imrnor* 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL? 



61 



tality was withdrawn, by man's being cut off from the tree 
of life ; and the whole man commenced dying. The 
existence of man from that hour became one of pain, sor- 
row, misery, and is hastening to its wind up, and will result 
in the utter extermination of his being, unless counteracted 
by eating " that bread that came down from heaven, that a 
man might eat thereof and not die." Christ is that " tree 
of life whose fruit is for the healing of the nations." " God 
has given unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son 
He that beiieveth on the Son hath everlasting life ; but he 
that beiieveth not the Son shall not see life ; but the wrath 
of God abideth on him," and abiding on him must result in 
death ; for that is the unalterable wages of sin throughout 
the universe of God ; as certainly so after the resurrection 
as before ; for some shall come forth to the resurrection of 
damnation, i. e., condemnation to the second death. 

Let us examine this point a little further, i. e., the idea 
that the penalty of the law of God is spiritual death. Turn 
to the account of man's creation, and the prohibition given 
him. 

" The Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, 
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man 
became a living soul." 

Did God address this " living soul," when he said, " In 
the day thou eatest thereof thou shait surely die" — or, " in 
dying thou shalt die ? To say otherwise would be an ab- 
surdity. 

To maintain that the death threatened was spiritual death, 
it appears to me is to confound man's sin with his punish- 
ment ; if by spiritual death is meant, man became insensi- 
ble to his obligation to his Maker, and to his own condition 
as a sinner, and lost all disposition to obey God ; and that, 
I suppose, is what is meant by it. Strange penalty that 
What would you think on reading the law which says, 
" For murder a man shall die," if some person should tell 
you it did not mean that the murderer should " be hung by 
the neck till he is dead," but that when he has committed 
the act of murder, he should immediately become insensi- 
ble to his obligation to regard lawful authority, and to his 
own condition as a murderer, and lose all disposition to obey 
6 



62 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



any law ? Would you not think such an interpretation of 
law was "murdering the king's English ?" and would you 
not also think that the man's insensibility and want of dis- 
position to obey any law, was an additional circumstance in 
his guilt, instead of being his punishment ? 

This insensibility to God and his claims upon us, is our 
sin and not our punishment, nor the penalty of God's law. 
To represent it in that light, is to furnish sinners with a 
perfect excuse for living in insensibility to God's claims 
upon them. If this state of spiritual death, as it is called, 
is the punishment of sin, or the penalty of the law, what 
man is now to blame for remaining in it ? 

The fact is, this insensibility to God, and his claims upon 
us, is an aggravation of our sin, and not the penalty of the 
law. The Bible represents this state as a high crime. " Is- 
rael doth not know, my people doth not consider ; O thai 
they had hearkened unto me," &c. Why all this com- 
plaint, if insensibility or spiritual death is the penalty or 
punishment that God has inflicted on men for sin ? Did 
God complain of men for not escaping out of his hands, 
and so avoiding the punishment ? As well might the gov- 
ernment complain of the murderer for not slipping the 
noose of his halter when hanging by his neck, on the sup- 
position that spiritual death is the punishment inflicted for 
sin. Let no man comfort his soul with that delusive idea. 
Depend upon it, our insensibility is a most horrid sin. Let 
the Almighty himself speak to such souls ; and what is his 
language to them ? " Now consider this, ye that forget 
God, lest I tear you in pieces and there be none to deliver.'" 
Psa. 50 : 22. 

Some tell us, that by the destruction of the wicked is 
meant the destruction of their sins ; and others, the destrue- 
rion of happiness. What ground have either of these 
classes of persons for their assertions ? The destruction of 
sin, of happiness, of being, are entirely distinct ideas ; 
though the latter involves the others, yet each is capable of 
being expressed in appropriate language. With respect to 
the latter, I know of no way in which it could be more ap- 
propriately or clearly set forth than it is by our Lord, in 
Matt. 10 : 28 — "Fear him which is able to iestroy both 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL. 63 



soul and body in hell." Compare this with the expression 
Df the apostle — " Who shall be punished with everlasting 
destruction from the presence of the Lord," and with Ps. 
92 : 7 — " The wicked shall be destroyed for ever." What 
testimony could be more explicit, that those who obey not 
the gospel are to be punished with destruction of being, and 
not of their sins or happiness merely. 

One other objection I will here notice from the Bible, 
which was passed over in my main argument. It is found- 
ed on Daniel 12 : 2 — " Many of them that sleep in the dust 
of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some 
to shame and everlasting contempt." 

It is said, " they must have everlasting consciousness to 
feel shame." 

I reply : " Shame" signifies not only a passion felt when 
reputation is lost, but the " disgrace and ignominy," which 
follows men for bad conduct long after they have passed 
away, personally, from knowledge. Take the case of a 
traitor to his country. For example, the conduct of Arnold 
in the American Revolution. He is never thought of with- 
out the shame of his evil deeds connected with him ; and 
it is a shame that is everlasting — never can be wiped off, 
though he ceases to live on earth to be conscious of it. He 
may be said, truly, to be a subject of everlasting « contempt," 
L e., he is " despised," and " scorned" for his vile conduct, 
and always will be. 

I see no difficulty, therefore, in the text under consider- 
ation. Here, also, as I have often remarked elsewhere, the 
punishment is put in opposition to life. The natural infer- 
ence is, that those who do not awake to life, awake to die 
again. 

I might remark again — the text does not say that they 
awake to everlasting shame. It says they awake to shame 
— mark that — " some to shame,'" — -and everlasting contempt. 
Now, so far as the argument is concerned, I care nothing 
ibout this distinction, yet if my opponent is determined to 
force this text to his aid, he must have no more of it than 
there is; hence, I affirm, the text does not say, that the 
shame shall be everlasting, but only that they shall awake 
to shame; and surely they must feel overwhelmed with 



64 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



shame, when God shall call them from their graves ; and 
when they shall be condemned to death, as too vile to have 
a place anywhere in the universe of God ; and the contempt 
that will follow them will be everlasting. 

There is one other text I will here notice, as it is of the 
same nature as the one in Daniel. John v. 28, 29, « The 
hour is coming in which all that are in their graves shall 
hear his voice, and shall come forth ; they that have done 
good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done 
evil to the resurrection of damnation." 

Let it be observed here, that life, simply, is the reward 
spoken of for them that have done good ; the others come 
forth, but it is not to live ; for it is a resurrection to damna- 
tion, or condemnation, for, so the word signifies. The only 
question, then, to settle is — what is the punishment to 
which they are condemned ? That it is a punishment from 
which they never recover, I have no doubt. But is it ever- 
lasting life in misery, or death ? I think it is the latter. In 
connection with the words under consideration, our Saviour 
said, at the 24th verse, " He that heareth my word, and be- 
lieveth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall 
not come into condemnation ; but is passed from death unto 
life." This text throws light on the other, and shows that 
our Saviour intended to be understood, by the damnation, 
or condemnation of evil doers, a condemnation unto Death, 
not life in misery. I conceive this text, then, gives no coun- 
tenance to the common theory of eternal being in undescri- 
bable torments, but shows that Death and not Life is the 
portion of those who have been doers of evil. 

x\gain, it is said, by way of objection, — Your " doctrine 
was held by the Arians — is now held by the Unitarians — 
that is Christianism — and finally, that it is Elias Smith's 
doctrine." 

Whether these marvellous objections are true " or not, I 
know not," as I never conversed with any of the above- 
named classes on the point, and know not that I ever read 
a paragraph from any of them on the subject. But sup- 
pose what the objector says is true ; it does not touch the 
question of the truth of this doctrine, nor at all shake my 
faith. We know the time was, when the grand argument 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL? 



65 



against some points of doctrine was " That's Arminianism" 
— " That 's Calvinism" — or " That is what the Methodists 
hold." Such language has passed for a very good argu- 
ment to frighten enslaved minds, in the absence of a better. 

But I may ask, whether, in a Christian land, there ever 
was a sect having no truth in their theory ? and whether 
an} 7 sect will have the pride to arrogate to themselves that 
they have the truth — the vjhole truth — and nothing but the 
truth ? If there is such a sect, it had better repair to Rome 
immediately, and get confirmed for infallibility. 

The fact is, truth lies scattered among all denominations ; 
none of them have the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth. Some have more than others . The guilt of all sects, 
lies to a great extent, in that intolerant spirit, that, in point 
of fact, claims for itself infallibility, and harbours, to a great- 
er or less extent, the idea that " there is no salvation out of" 
their " church whilst inspiration declares that " In every 
nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is 
accepted with him." 

Again, it is said, " You have gone half way to Univer- 
salism." That is, I have granted that even Universalists 
have some truth. They do not believe in the eternal con- 
scious being of the wicked in torments ; and I have admit- 
ted, that in this, they are right. Unhappy men ! — must 
they be so " chased out of the world," to keep up the war- 
fare upon them, that in all they pretend to hold for truth, 
they are so blinded that they have none ? 

I am glad. in my heart, if I can approach one step to- 
wards Universalists, without sacrificing truth ; for I hope 
thereby to gain some of them, and save their souls alive, by 
removing out of their hands their main argument for uni- 
versal salvation : viz,, that " The idea of the eternal con- 
scious being of innumerable human beings, in undescriba- 
ble torments, is irreconcilable with the perfections of God, 
and that therefore all men will be saved." The hearer see- 
ing no other view of the subject, but eternal conscious being 
in misery, or Universalism, takes hold of the latter. 

Every one, who has had anything to do with Universal- 
ists, knows this is their main fort ; and here it is they al- 
ways wish to meet their opposers— and their converts are 
6* 



36 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



made more from the exhibition of the hombleness of the 
punishment, which their opposers say is to be inflicted upon 
the wicked, than any other, and all other arguments that 
they use. 

If, then, I have taken this weapon from their hands, 
which is no where explicitly taught in the word of God, am 
I not better prepared to come down upon their hearts and 
understandings by the express declarations of the Most 
High, that, « The soul that sinneth it shall die ,-" — that, the 
wicked " Shall be punished with everlasting destruction 
from the presence of the Lord — that they shall be " Cast 
into the lake of fire and brimstone, which is the second 
death — that they shall be " Tormented day and night for 
ever and ever," i. e. while their being lasts — and that finally 

— they shall " utterly perish" — " be destroyed forever" — . 
"be consumed with terrors" — "shall not see life" — be cu- 
off forever, from all the pleasures derived from " everlasting 
life," because they have refused to come to Christ that they 
might have life. 

Is there nothing awakening in ali this ? Nothing calcu- 
lated to arouse the sinner to seek life ? And the language 
too, is Scriptural, and less likely to objection than the un- 
scriptural language of "immortal soul" — "deathless spirit'* 

— "always dying and never dead" — "eternal conscious 
being in torments," &c. &c, all of which are of human in- 
vention, to say nothing of some of them being a contradic- 
tion in terms, and a flat denial of the testimony of God, that 
" The soul that sinneth, it shall die." 

To talk of a "soul always dying and never dead;'''' or, 
of "a death that never dies" is such an absurdity, that I 
wonder how it was ever believed by any man who thinks 
for himself. A doctrine that involves such a palpable con- 
tradiction is not to be promulgated for truth, unless we wish 
to bring discredit upon revelation itself. The theory I op- 
pose has driven many thinking men into infidelity. That 
any man can embrace it, I cannot account for, except from 
the fact, that they have been early taught it, and the dread 
of feeling the indignation of bigoted men who think it a 
crime to depart from what they, or their fathers have bap- 
tised " orthodox." 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL ? 



61 



Another objection to the theory I advocate, and perhaps 
the one that stands most in the way of its being received 
for truth, is, — ".If this doctrine is true, why has it never 
been found out before ?" 

I do not know but it has been found out before. I lay 
no claim to being the discoverer of it. I am told that 
Samuel Bourne of Birmingham, and John Taylor of Nor- 
wich, held the same sentiments, " in substance, making due 
allowance for the shape and colour they have received from 
the peculiar mind of Mr. Storrs." Whether that is true oi 
not I know not, as I never saw a line of their writings 
that I know of. My attention was called to the subject by 
a small pamphlet I found in New York, some years ago, 
Who was its author, I did not know, as it had no name 
attached to it. I read it, but did not think much of it at the 
time. It is the only thing of the kind I ever saw before or 
since on the subject till lately. I suppose I felt like the ob- 
jector ; i. e. if this view of the subject be true, why is it that 
Christians and ministers have not learned it before ? Never- 
theless, I could not resist the impression to examine the 
subject for myself. I did so from time to time for several 
years, and conversed with' ministers on the subject ; for I 
would not then allow myself to speak upon it with laymen? 
lest I might lead them into a belief of a doctrine which I 
had not fully investigated, and be the means of their going 
astray. I studied the Bible, reading and noting down every 
text that spoke of, or appeared to have reference to the final 
destiny of wicked men. The result of my investigations 
and convictions I have laid before you. 

The fact that a particular view of religious truth is new, 
is no proof of its incorrectness ; it may be a reason why we 
should not embrace it without thorough investigation. How 
• many things passed for truth in the dark ages of the church 
that have since been exploded ! and when they were firs^ 
exposed to the light, the " innovators," as they were called, 
were branded as " heretics." 

We should do well to remember that we have but jus% 
emerged from the dark ages of the church ; and it would 
not be at all strange if we should find some "Babylonish 
garments" still worn by us for truth ; or to speak without a 



68 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



figure, we have no reason to suppose that the Reformers, 
as they are called, divested themselves of all the supersti 
tions and false interpretations that had been put upon thu 
Bible, when ignorant men were kept in awe by the sup- 
posed sanctity of the priests. 

The Reformers may have done well, considering their 
circumstances, and the prejudices of their education : but 
must we sit down and quietly follow exactly in their steps, 
without employing the understanding and Bibles God has 
given us, to see if there are not things " new," as well as 
" old" in God's blessed word ? Our Saviour saith : " Every 
scribe which is instructed unto the Kingdom of God, bring- 
eth forth out of his treasures, things new and old." 

If it is a fact, in science generalty, that false theories have 
been held for ages, may it not be so in religion f — Since my 
recollection, the theory has been held, and promulgated for 
Bible truth, that there were " infants in hell not a span 
long" — and that " God made some men on purpose to show 
his power in their eternal torments in hell fire." Yes, and 
that he " decreed all their sins which led to the result," and 
sent " the gospel to some people on purpose," i. e. with the 
design, " to increase their damnation!" And it is within 
my remembrance, that a man was not considered orthodox 
who did not hold these views. But, I doubt, if any man 
now can be found who holds such sentiments ; or, if he 
does, will be willing to avow them. 

Is it to be wondered at, then, if in an age when such 
shocking absurdities are but just passing away, there should 
be found still left a remnant of doctrine belonging to the 
same class ? 

Benson, an eminent English minister, in a sermon on 
"The Future Misery of the Wicked," says, " God is present 
in bell, in his infinite justice and almighty wrath, as an un- 
fathomable sea of liquid fire, where the wicked must drink 
in everlasting torture — the presence of God in his vengeance 
catters darkness and wo through the dreary regions of 
misery. As heaven would be no heaven if God did no* 
there manifest his love, so hell would be no hell, if God did 
not there display his wrath. It is the presence and agency 
of God, which gives every thing virtue and efficacy, with- 



AEE THE WICKED IMMORTAL 1 



69 



out which there can be no life, no sensibility, no power." 
He then add? — « God is, therefore, himself present in hell, 
to see the punishment of these rebels against his govern- 
ment, that it may be adequate to the infinity of their guilt : 
his fiery indignation kindles, and his incensed fury feeds 
the flame of their torment, while his powerful presence and 
operation maintain their being, and rendei all their powers 
most' acutely sensible ; thus setting the keenest edge upon 
their pain, and making it cut most intolerably deep. He 
will exert all his divine attributes to make them as wretched 
as the capacity of their nature will admit." 

After this he goes on to describe the duration of this work 
of God, and calls to his aid all the stars, sand, and drops oi 
water, and makes each one tell a million of ages : and 
when all those ages have rolled away, he goes over the 
same number again, and again, and so on forever. 

And all this he brings forth with a text of Scripture that 
asserts the wicked « shall be punished with everlasting de- 
struction from the presence of the Lord." Such a descrip- 
tion as here given by Mr. Benson needs no comment — it 
defies comment — no language could be employed to make 
a subject look more horrible than what he has used. He 
dwelt upon the subject, himself, till his own soul was filled 
with horror, and he cried out — " Believe me, my poor fel- 
low mortal, thou canst not, indeed thou canst not bear this 
devouring fire ! Thou canst not dwell with these everlast- 
ing burnings !" N 

There must be some defect in a theology, it seems to me, 
that leads great men into such palpable contradictions. 

Mr. Benson preached two whole sermons on these sub- 
jects, in which he scarcely produces a text of Scripture in 
support of his theory- — they appear to be, throughout, a work 
of imagination, 

I consider, to charge the infinite God with the design and 
determination of exerting his almighty power in holding 
innumerable human beings in undescribable torments, in 
interminable conscious being, is of the same character as 
the other horrible doctrines that I have named ; and is not 
to be believed without the clearest and most positive testi- 
mony. Such testimony the Bible does not furnish, to my 



70 



£*BLE EXAMINES. 



mind, and therefore, I reject such a theory as opposed to 
the Bible, to reason, and to common sense. The theory \ 
advocate has one great difficulty to overcome, viz : the 
strong prejudice of early education, backed up by the con- 
sideration that the common theory has been so long the 
established faith of the church. But, even that difficulty is 
overbalanced by the fact, that the sympathies of our nature, 
md reason, are opposed to the common theory, and are 
owards the views I advocate, when once presented to the 
mind : and a spirit to examine for ourselves, instead of 
leaving our thinking to others, has gone forth in the earth. 

If the fact that a theory has long ago been settled, and 
always believed by the " fathers," is a good reason for re- 
jecting, as untrue, any other theory, then the Jews have the 
best reason they could desire for rejecting Jesus of Nazareth 
as the Messiah. The Jewish Church '.'long ago" decided 
that he was an impostor, and crucified him as such. The 
Jews of the present day, then, may say — " Our church long 
ago settled the point, that Jesus was not the promised Mes- 
siah ; and who were better qualified to judge than they to 
whom the Scriptures were committed, and in whose lan- 
guage they were written ? Besides, our fathers have al- 
ways believed and maintained that Jesus was an impostor 
Hence, w r e consider it a settled point." 

Now, I ask, if such an argument is not quite as good 
and forcible, as the one used by some of my opponents, that 
my view must be false, because, as they suppose, the church 
3ong ago fixed on the opposite theory as true, and their 
fathers have always believed it ? Let such persons make 
no more attempts to convert the Jews. Indeed, they ought 
to turn Jews. 

Whether others see on this subject as I do or not, it is a 
matter of unspeakable consolation to me to believe, that the 
devil and all his works will be utterly destroyed ; and that 
a universe will appear unstained by sin, misery or death. — 
If others believe the contrary, it will be no cause why I 
should disfellowship them, provided they walk in obedience 
to the will and word of God. The Lord, I trust, has de- 
livered me from that spirit of bigotry which would shut 
out from my christian regard and fellowship any man, sun- 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL? 



71 



ply because he does not agree with me in sentiments, espe- 
cially if he is striving to live a holy life, by obeying the 
commandments of God ; " for this is the love of God that 
we keep his commandments"— and « he that saith he loves 
God and hateth his brother, is a liar and the truth is not in 
him." 

Whether the doctrine I have advocated is true or false 
matters not to me, personally, further than truth is con- 
cerned. For, by the grace of God, I intend to « fight the 
good fight of faith," and " lay hold on eternal life." Alt 
those that do this, I know, for the Bible declares it, will be 
crowned with honour, and glory, and immortality. Those 
who do not do it, will be cast into the lake of fire, which is 
the second death. — Awful, indeed, will be their end. O, 
that sinners may awake to see their danger, and fly from the 
doom that awaits them ! O, the thoughts of the anguish 
that a dying sinner must feel ! an -anguish kindled up by s 
sense of guilt, a sight of what, to them, is lost forever, and 
the curse of a violated law, which will cause them to perish, 
without recovery and without hope. 



SIXTH DISCOUESl. 

" I will not contend forever, neither will I be always wroth ; for the spirii 
should fail before me, and the souls which I have made." — Isa. Ivii. 16. 

We are too apt to take the words of Scripture and apply 
them to all men indiscriminately, without regarding the 
character of the person spoken of. In this way we pervert 
the w r ord of the Most High, and sometimes comfort those 
whom God has not comforted. I conceive, that has been 
done vvith the words of my text. They have been applied 
to all men ; when the context shows, most clearly, they are 
spoken only of the " contrite ones," who are " humble and 
contrite" under the judgments, or chastisements that God 
had inflicted upon them for their sins : while it is expressly 
said, in the same connection, there is « no »eace to the 
wicked ;" — God's wrath abideth on them ; and abiding on 
them, they will certainly « fail." The term " fail," used in 



72 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



the text, though it has other significations, is, I think, 
generally used by the prophet Isaiah, to signify " to perish." 
He says, 21 : 16 — « All the glory of Kedar shall feiLV 
And 19 : 3 — « The spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst 
thereof." 

I consider the sense of the text, then, to be this — ; < "With 
those persons "who truly humble themselves, and repent, 
under my rebukes, I will not continue my displeasure — for 
if my wrath should remain upon any man, he would utterly 
perish, soul and spirit, as surely as I have made him." — 
Hence, the doctrine of the text seems to me, to be this — 
1st. God is the Creator of the souls and spirits of men, and 
of course, can destroy them. 2d. If God's wrath should 
continue, upon any man, without being withdrawn, it -would 
certainly cause it to " fail"' — perish : or cease to exist : he 
could not continue in being under it. 3. But upon those 
who do repent, that wrath shall not abide. 

These remarks have chiefly been made to meet an objec- 
tion that man is composed of three parts — body, soul and 
spirit ; and that, though his body and soul might perish, his 
spirit could not I have used the term soul throughout my 
discourses in its broadest sense as including the essence of 
what constitutes a man j and I am satisfied that is the gen- 
eral sense in which the Scriptures use it, though in some 
texts it is, undoubtedly, used in a more restricted sense, 
and refers only to that energy that gives activity to the 
body. 

It is a matter of indifference which way it is applied in 
my text ; for the expressions are such as to include the 
whole man, and to show that every man on whom the wrath 
of God abideth will perish — utterly perish — body, "soul 
and spirit." 

I shall now proceed to notice one of the evils of the op- 
posite theory ; or the maintaining that such expressions as 
die — death — destroy — destroy ed — destruction — burned 
tip — perish, &c. are not to be understood literally, i. e. ac- 
cording to their obvious meaning, when spoken of the final 
destiny of wicked men. 



AEE THE WICKED IMMORTAL? 



73 



Use evil of the co^ixoy thioht of endless being 

I>~ MISERY, 

Is, — It sustains the mischievous practice of mystifying, or 
making the Scriptures to have a secret or hidden meaning, 
in the plainest texts. 

This mischievous practice was brought into the church, 
almost as soon as the Apostles had left the world. The 
converts from heathenism seemed intent on nailing heathen 
philosophy with Christianity. Hence they must rind an 
abundance of mysteries in the Scriptures : and the practice 
of allegorizing, i. e. making the 
thing that does not appear in 
generally prevailed, before the 
done, doubtless, with a view to 
embrace Christianity, as afTorc 
their researches. But it led the churct 
fields of conjecture ; and every lively in 
hidden wonders in the Bible : while th 
ing of the text was disregarded. Th, 
creased from age to age, till the simplic 
totally eclipsed, and the obscuration h 
peared to this day. 

This practice has 
as to infidels to sav 
Bible," or play an 
men are to be all 
obvious, and literal 
figurative, when th 
The Scriptures themselves almost un: 
the iauguage is to be understood fig 
rally , those figures are explained, am 
tion given. 

The common method of making ti 
mystical or figurative. L e. to mean 
far different from what appears in tl 
signification of the words, I conceive 

Scriptures, and tends only to throw confusion upon the 
plainest subjects of the Bible, and also to take away the 
? 



iven occasion to hon 
• You can make any 
tune upon it." An 
ved to take texts wl 
gnification, and call 
e is not a clear neees 



to contain some- 
commenced and 
itnry. This was 
?n philosophers to 
i fruitful field for 
;tray into the wild 
ination could find 
ilain literal mean- 
fatal practice in- 
ot the gospel was 
not wholly disap- 

est people, as well 
thing out of the 
d this is true, if 
lich have a plain, 
them mystical or 

•mly notify us when 
itively ; and gene- 
le literal interpreta- 

erms life and deatn 
mething more, and 
literal and obvious 
unwarranted by the 



74 



BIBLE EXAMINES. 



force and beauty of very many otherwise clear and intelli- 
gible portions of God's word. 

Let me now call your attention to texts, the beauty v 1 
force of which are greatly weakened and obscured by such 
a course. 

Look at the young man who came to our Saviour with 
an important inquiry. Matt. 19 : 16 — What does he say ? 
Is it his inquiry, " What shall I do to escape endless being 
in misery ? " No j but « What shall I do that I may have 
eternal life 5 " How plain the question, on the theory I ad- 
vocate, and how appropriate the answer, " If thou wilt en- 
ter into life," &c. Not — if thou wilt escape endless life in 
torments — not, if thou wilt have a " happy eternal life," 
but simply — If thou wilt enter into life. What simplicity, 
beauty, and force ! all is natural, and easy to be understood. 

Again, John 3 : 15, 16, < i That whosoever belie veth in 
him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so 
loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
whosoever believe th in him might not perish, but have ever- 
lasting life." All here, again, is natural, easy, and forcible, 
on the theory that the wicked are actually to die or perish 
if found rejecting Christ, who only has eternal life to give. 
But on the theory I oppose, we must have a whole sermon 
to explain the meaning of the term perish, and make it 
appear that it does not mean " extinction of being," but 
eternal life in misery ! I once heard a Doctor of Divinity 
in New York city preach a whole sermon on that one 
point ; and that, too, after he had admitted that the pri- 
mary meaning of the term is " extinction of being." It 
seems to me it is taking quite too much pams to make ob- 
scure the meaning of a word, that of itself is easy to be 
understood. 

In the same chapter, at the 36th verse, it is said : " He 
that beiieveth not the Son shall not see life ; but the wrath 
of God abideth on him." He is already condemned to 
death, and is dying ; eternal life is offered in the Son of 
God ; he that will not accept it. through him, shall not pos- 
sess life, but the wrath of God shall abide on him to the full 
execution of the penalty, which is death, the wages of sin. 
Again. John 5 : 28, 29 — < The hour is coming in which 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL? 75 



all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall 
come forth ; they that have done good to the resurrection 
of life ; and they that have done evil to the resurrection of 
damnation," or condemnation : but to what ? not to eter- 
nal life in misery, but to death— the second death, for that 
is the wages sin has earned. Here the language is natural 
and forcible, on the view I advocate, and the contrast of life 
and death is perfect ; but I ask any candid man if it is so 
on the view I oppose ? 

Again, at the 39th and 40th verses : « Search the Scrip- 
tures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life ; and they 
are they that testify of me ; and ye will not come to me, 
that ye might have life." 

They were looking not for eternal happiness merely, or 
an escape from eternal misery, but simply for eternal life. 
Yet, when the only physician who could give that priceless 
blessing calls them to come to him for it, they would not 
come ; and, as a matter of course, their souls are not saved 
" from death." Look at the following texts, in the 6th 
chapter of John . " Labour for the meat that endureth unto 
everlasting life." " For the bread of God is he which com- 
eth down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." " I 
am the bread of life " " And this is the will of him that 
sent me, that every one which seeth the Son and believeth 
on him may have everlasting life." " He that believeth on 
me hath everlasting life." " I am the bread of life." "This 
is that bread which comoth down from heaven, that a man 
may eat thereof, and not die." " If any man eat of this 
bread, he shall live for ever." "The words I speak unto 
you, they are spirit, and they are life." " Lord, to whom 
shall we go ? thou hast the words of eternal life." 

That simple life and death are put in opposition, or clear- 
ly implied in these texts, is too plain not to be seen by any 
person of common attention. "NOT DIE," — " ETER- 
A T AL LIFE." Now, a man shall "not die," if the theory 
* oppose is true, whether he come to Christ or not ; and it 
would have been just as easy to have expressed the doc- 
trine of eternal being in misery by unequivocal language, 
as in that, the literal interpretation of which must necessa- 
rily lead astray, if that doctrine be true. 



76 



BIBLE EXAMINEE. 



Again, John 8 : 12, "He that followeth me shall have 
the li^ht of life." And at the 51st verse, " If a man keep 
my savings he shall never see death." Again, in 10th chap- 
ter, " I am come that they might have life." " My sheep 
hear my voice, and they follow me ; and I give unto them 
eternal life — and they shall never perish," &c. Does not 
this 'anguage clearly imply, that those who do not follow 
Christ will perish ? Yes, says the objector, their happiness 
will perish ! But I ask, if such an interpretation is not 
forced and unnatural ? Our Saviour says no such thing 
Perish is put in opposition to life. B}^ the simple and nat 
ural meaning of the terms, there is great beauty and force 
in the language. Besides, to admit of a departure from the 
literal meaning of the term perish, throws us into the re- 
gions of uncertainty ; and if one man may say it means his 
happiness shall perish, another may say it means his sins 
shall perish, and so on. But if it signifies simply what the 
word imports, a destruction of being, then his happiness 
and his sins perish with him, as a matter of course, and 
there is no obscurity about it. 

Again, the 1 1th chapter, 25th and 26th verses—" I am the 
resurrection and the life ; he that believeth in me, though 
he were dead, yet shall he live ; and whosoever liveth and 
believeth in me shall never die/ How forcible and full of 
power are those words, literally understood ! But say, to 
die, means loss of happiness, though the person has con- 
scious being, or life, and you at once strip the expression 
of our Lord of the energy which it possesses in its plain 
and obvious meaning. 

Again — " I am the way, the truth, and the life : no man 
cometh unto the Father but by me." 

Again, Rom. 5 : 17 — "If by one man's offence, death 
reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance 
of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life 
by one Jesus Christ ; therefore, as by the offence of one, 
judgment casie upon ail men to condemnation, (i. e. unto 
death ;) even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift 
came upon all men, (i. e. in its offer,) unto justification of 
life ;" " That as sin hath reigned unto death," (i. e. unto 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL? 



condemnation to death,) « even so might grace reign through 
righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." 

Again, in the 6th chapter, 13th verse — « Yield yourselves 
unto God, as those that are alive from the dead." IS'ow 
I ook at such expressions as the following : " The crown of 

life," « The word of life," — " the grace of life," — " He 

that hath the Son hath life — -he that hath not the Son of 
God hath not life,"—" The water of life, 57 —' Verily, verily, 
I say unto you, he that heareth my word and believeth on 
him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come 
into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life," — 
« This do and thou shalt live," — " Because I live ye shall 
live also," — « We shall also live with him,"—" Be in sub- 
jection unto the Father of spirits, and live,"—" God sent 
his Son, that we might live through him," — " If one died 
for all, then were all dead," (i. e., dying, doomed to die ; as 
the body is dead, because of sin, i. e., doomed to die, though 
not yet actually dead.) " Who died for us, that we should 
live together with him." These, and a multitude of other 
texts of Scripture, all speak in plain and unequivocal lan- 
guage, if the view I take of the final destiny of the wicked 
is correct ; otherwise, and if figurative, the imagination 
must be employed to explain them ; and then we find our- 
selves let lGose in the wild fields of fancy 5 and who shall 
decide where we shall stop ? 

What man lost by the fall ; or, a short disser- 
tation ON NATIVE DEFRAVITY. 

In my discourse on the inquiry, Are the wicked immor- 
tal ? I have endeavoured to show that man, by the fall, lost 
all title to immortality 5 and had it not been for the " seed 
of the woman," he would have utterly perished, or ceased 
to be, as though he never had been. There is not a parti- 
cle of evidence that the original threatening embraced eter- 
nal life in misery ; and that idea has puzzled our greatest 
and most learned divines, to tell how an atonement could 
be made adequate to redeem man from such a punishment. 
To meet the case, they have gone to the idea that God, 
himself, suffered to make the necessary atonement ; and 
then they have started back from that position, as being im- 
7* 



^ 5 



BIBLE EXAMCNBR. 



possible that the Godhead could actually suffer, and so hiw 

substituted the "human body and soul''' of Jesus Christ, as 
united with the Godhead, the human nature only suffering. 
Phis has led others to deny an atonement altogether, as 
they huve contended that the man Christ Jesus, while the 
Godhead did not suffer, could not, by any sufferings he 
might endure, give an equivalent for endless torments in the 
fire of hell. Pressed with this difficulty, the advocates of 
the endless being in torments, have been led to say, it was 
not necessary to an atonement that the sufferer should en- 
dure the very same punishment that the guilty were liable 
to, but only such as should show that God would not let 
sin go unpunished. Others have taken advantage of this 
admission to deny the necessity of an atonement at all, and 
hence have opposed the idea of an atonement. This has 
resulted in a still further departure from what I think to be 
truth, and they have taken the position, that if man suffers 
for his sins, himself, that is all-sufficient ; and that his suf- 
ferings are bounded by this life, or at most, to a very limit- 
ed period in a future state, after which he will have an eter- 
nity of happiness. 

Now, all this confusion and conjecture, for I can give it 
no higher name. I conceive, arises from not clearly under- 
standing what man lost by the fall, for himself and posterity. 
Man lost for himself, it is true, holiness and happiness, as 
well as immortality. But for his posterity, in my judg- 
ment, there is not a particle of evidence, in the whole Bible, 
that he lost any thing but immortality. Doctors of Divinity 
have puzzled their own brains, and those of students in 
theology, with laboured efforts to find out what infants need 
to have done for them, and how God does it, to fit them for 
heaven. Long and laboured arguments and inquiries have 
been entered into about the depravity of infants — how they 
are justified — how they are made holy — and whether all of 
them go to heaven, or part to hell. &c &c. The whole 
of these discussions have only served to make darkness 
darker. The truth, I conceive, is very simple, and that, 
perhaps, is the reason why great men overlook it. It ia 
simply this — Adam Lost immortality — and therefore could 
not communicate it to his posterity, any more than an im- 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL ? 



7€ 



poverished parent could communicate riches to his children ; 
the consequence is, all his posterity are born, not liable to 
eternal conscious being in misery, but liable to perish, to 
lose all life, sense and being ; and what they need, previous 
to personal sins, is simply salvation from perishing, or they 
need immortality, eternal life. 

Hence, all God does, and ail that is necessary to be done 
to any sou], before personal transgression, is to have eternal 
life, or immortality, given to soul and body. This God gives 
to all infants who die in infancy, " for of such is the king- 
dom of God and the " gift of God is eternal life" — but 
this gift is "through Jesus Christ our Lord." We see, 
then, from w T hat Christ redeems little children ; it is from 
death, or from perishing, not from eternal life in misery, 
for they were not exposed to that, and, hence, needed no 
redemption from it. 

This view of the subject relieves the mind from the fog 
and confusion thrown over us by the common theory of to- 
tal depravity, and which has so long puzzled theologians as 
w^eil as common people, and rent the churches with contro- 
versy. 

Christ redeemed man from death, or that loss of being 
to which he was exposed, and opened eternal life to all ; or, 
he " abolished death and brought life and immortality to 
light." But that eternal life is the gift of God, through 
Jesus Christ. He gives it to all who die in infancy, with- 
out requiring any thing to be done on their part ; for this 
plain reason,-— they were incapable of 'doing any thing, and 
God requires no improvement of what he has never given. 

But with respect to those who have come to years of un» 
derstanding, the case is different. They are required to aci 
faith in the truths revealed to their minds under whatever 
dispensation they may live. Hence' under the Gospel, we 
are required to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, as he that 
*< came down from heaven" to give " life unto the world." 
This is the great test question ; because he that truly re- 
ceives Christ, receives all the other truths connected with 
his mission to earth ; not only so, but he manifests that faith 
by obedience ; so that a true faith is as certainly known by 
the conduct and conversation, as a living man is known 
&om a dead carcass, And for a man to pretend that he has 



80 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



faith in Christ, while he does not walk in obedience to aP 
the known commands of God, is as absurd as to say, thai 
the body without the spirit is alive ; or, that a sick man has 
faith in a physician whom he refuses to employ, and whose 
directions he will not follow. 

I conceive, all the " evil nature," about which there has 
been so much discussion in the world, that man inherits 
from Adam, is a dying nature ; the entire man perishing. 
Christ came, that man " might not perish, but have ever- 
lasting life :" adults by believing in him ; i. e., receive him 
as the heaven-appointed dispenser of life. And he that will 
not thus come to Christ, will not have life, but will perish 
forever ; — and perish too under an insupportable weight of 
guilt for having rejected life ; preferring the pleasures of 
sin, or the things of time and sense, to the enjoyment of 
eternal life. They have their choice — the} 7 chose their good 
things in this world, and when they leave it, they are re- 
served unto the judgment to be tried and punished. 

They have passed the bounds where that life might have 
been secured ; and there remains for them, now, nothing 
but '« a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indigna- 
tion, which shall devour" [as the word means, " to eat up" 
-—"destroy" — "to annihilate,"] "the adversaries." 

I had no intention, at this time, of going into a long and 
laboured argument on the subject of depravity. I designed 
only to throw out a few thoughts to show you the bearing 
of the subject I have had so long under discussion, on other 
points of doctrine that have been considered obscure and 
difficult, and which have cost immense labour to the learned 
to make plain to common minds, and which, after all that 
has been said and written, have remained obscure. 

Now if the view I have taken, with regard to man's ex- 
posedness to perish, to die, i. e., to lose all life, sense, and 
beh.g, is true, I appeal to the understanding of all, if it does 
not at once make plain the long obscure subject of " inhe- 
rent depravity ?" What is it ? Why simply this — Every 
child of Adam inherits a perishing, dying nature, i. e., soul and 
body both are perishing, or have no principle of immortality 
in them. Adam could communicate no other, as he lost immor- 
tality, i. e., his title to it, the day he sinned, and could only re- 
gain it for himself, personally, by a personal act of faith : but 



ARE THE WICKED IMMORTAL? 



81 



that act of faith did not make immortality inherent in him, 
that being in Christ alone, and of course, the whole of Adam, 
separate from Christ, and by natural tendency, was dying, 
perishing, tending to utter destruction of being. This being 
the case, he could communicate no other nature to his pos 
terity. By^ Adam, therefore, " all were dead i. e., the 
natural tendency of all bom of him was to perish, in the 
sense of ceasing to be. Christ " died for all first, that all 
who leave this world in infancy, or prior to personal trans- 
gression, might have eternal life, and not perish. How 
glorious does this view of the subject make Christ appear 
in his relation to little children ! No wonder he took them 
in his arms and blessed them, and said — " Suffer little chil- 
dren to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is 
the kingdom of heaven." And eternally, in glory, will 
those who die in infancy praise him who redeemed them 
from death — and saved them from perishing. 

•Second — Christ died for all, " that whosoever believeth in 
him (i. e. who are capable of the exercise of faith.) " might 
not perish, but have everlasting life." Adults then pass 
from death, i. e., from condemnation to death, unto life, 
through, or by faith in Christ — and thus are said to be 
born again ; as that which is born of the flesh, i. e., of cor- 
ruptible, perishing man, is flesh — perishing, corruptible, 
like him from whom he sprung ; so, that which is born of 
the spirit, i. e., of the spiritual, living Adam, Christ, is spirit, 
is alive ; or, hath eternal life ; according to the Scripture 
which saith, « he that hath the Son hath life," whilst « he 
that hath not the Son hath not life." 

If I mistake not, then, the true state of the case is this. 
— All men, in consequence of being the offspring of Adam, 
are destitute of immortality ; God has given his Son Jesus 
Christ, to die for us, that we might not perish, except by 
our own fault. He takes care to give eternal life to all who 
are incapable of choosing it for themselves. Those who 
are capable of making the choice, he sets « life and death 
before" them, and calls upon them to " choose life," that 
they " may live ;" — if they will not come to Christ that they 
may have life, they pass on and perish, but they perish un- 
der an insupportable load of guilt and shame, for having 
preferred the things of this life to eternal life. 



APPENDIX. 



The notion that there is life in the soul of the wicked, or 

a principle that cannot die, was taken from the Platonic 
Philosophers, and was introduced into the Church, as a 
Scripture doctrine, in the third century. 

Mosheim, in his Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I. p. 86, 
says: — "Its first promoters argued from that known doc- 
trine of the Platonic School, which was also adopted by 
Origen and his disciples, that the divine nature was diffused 
through all human souls ; or in other words, that the faculty 
of reason, from which proceed the health and vigour of the 
mind, was an emanation from God into the human soul, 
and comprehended in it the principles and elements of ah 
truth human and divine." 

Such, I conceive, is the true origin of the doctrine of the 
natural immortality of the soul. It originated in heathen 
philosophy, and was grafted on to Christianity to its im- 
mense injury. No wonder Paul, Col. 2 : 8, said — " Beware 
lest any man spoil you through PHILOSOPHY and vain 
deceit, after the Traditions of men, after the rudiments of 
this world, and not after Christ." 

The Psalmist says, 37th Psa. 20th verse : w The wicked 
shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the 
fat of lambs; they shall consume; into SMOKE shall they 
consume away" Compare this w T ith Isa. 41 : 11, 12 : " Be- 
hold all they that were incensed against thee shall be asham- 
ed and confounded ; they shall be as nothing ; and they 
that strive with thee shall perish. Thou shalt seek them, 
and shalt not find them, even them that contended with 
thee ; they that war against thee shall be as nothing, and as 
A THING OF NOUGHT." Compare this with Psa. 92 : 
7: "When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all 
the workers of iniquity do flourish, it is that they shall be 
DESTROYED FOR EVER." In view of this truth the 
Psalmist said, 104th Psa. 35th verse: "Let the sinners 
[literally, the sinners shall] be consumed out of the earth, 
and let the wicked [literally, the wicked shall] be NO 
MORE." In view of such a result, he cries out — " Bies3 
the Lord, O my soul. Praise the Lord." 

The proof from such texts is too positive, in my mind, to 
admit of a doubt but that the wicked will die — cease to 
have existence, after their resurrection. Then they will 
experience tiie " second death" and be found "NO MORE 
AT ALL." (82) 



THE WICKED NOT IMMORTAL. 



PAIN AND PUNISHMENT NOT INSEPARABLE. . 

What is the Scripture argument that the righteous 
an. I the wicked are not equally immortal ? The Bible 
expressly declares that the righteous put on "immor- 
tality"— thai they have " eternal life" and it as ex- 
pressly declares that Christ will " burn up the wicked; 5 ' 
yea, that the Lord of Hosts "shall burn them up/ 3 so 
that they shall be left "neither root nor branch/' — that 
they shall die — be destroyed for ever — perish — utterly 
perish, &c. 

The notion that pain and punishment are inseparable 
is erroneous. If pain were essential, in order to con- 
stitute punishment, then our laws inflict the lightest 
punishment, or penalty, on the greatest offenders. But 
our civil laws are based on the principle that life is a 
blessing, and the deprivation of that life, an evil, loss, 
penalty or punishment. If the deprivation of life, which 
is a blessing, is a punishment, then an eternal depriva- 
tion of it will be an eternal punishment. Put some 
think that people cannot be punished unless they are 
conscious of the fact, but the laws of the land do not so 
regard punishment, or death would be only a momentary 
punishment, for the law does not look into the future. 
Besides, you may take a being whose life is the most 
wretched imaginable, and yet the law would regard the 
deprivation of that miserable life, even if the individual 
were a Christian, as the highest penalty it can inflict. 
It is the deprivation of the life itself — not the pain 
inflicted, or the pain which God may inflict after death, 
to which the law looks. Hence the deprivation of a 
blessing, whether the individual remains sensible of it 
or not, is punishment, and if that deprivation is eternal, 
the punishment is eternal. If Gabriel were to trans- 
gress, and to be instantly, without a single pang, blot- 
ted eternally out of existence, would it not be to him 
an ETERNAL PUNISHMENT ? 
83 



No. 1. 



THE INTERMEDIATE STATE, 

OR, STATE OF THE DEAD FROM DEATH TO THE 
RESURRECTION. 

By George Storrs. 

I consider the intermediate state of the dead to be a topic 
of some importance, as upon a proper understanding of this 
subject depends, in a great measure, correct views of the 
resurrection of the dead ; for, it must be manifest that if 
only a part of man dies, there can be no resurrection of man, 
only in part ; but, do the Scriptures countenance any other 
idea than that the vihole man is raised from the dead ? . 

First, then — Let us inquire what is death ? 

Milton, the author of "Paradise Lost," says: "The 
common definition which supposes it to consist in the sepa- 
ration of soul and body, is inadmissible. For," he inquires. 
44 wmat part of man is it that dies when this separation takes 
place ? Is it the soul ? This will not be admitted by the 
supporters of the above definition. Is it then the body ? But 
how can that be said to die which never had any life in 
itself? Therefore," he adds, "the separation of soul and 
body cannot be called the death of man." 

But we can hardly approach this subject without the cry 
of heresy or infidelity being raised. — In the same way the 
Pope might have kept the Reformers in eternal silence, if 
they had feared his denunciations. Allow me to give an- 
other extract from Miiton on the above subject. He in- 
quires : — 

" Is it the whole man, or the body alone that is deprived 
of vitality He adds—" As this is a subject which may be 
discussed without endangering our faith or devotion, which- 
ever side of the controversy we espouse, I shall freely de- 
clare what seems to me the true doctrine, as collected from 
numberless passages of Scripture, without regarding the 
opinion of those who think that truth is to be sought in the 
schools of philosophy, raihcr :han in the sacred writings.' 
See Milton's Treatise on Christian Doctrines. 

(3) 



4 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



This work of Milton's I never saw till lately. I am so 
much pleased with his views on this subject that the reader 
will excuse me if I occasionally make an extract from him ; 
and I feel the more inclined to do it because I have been 
denounced as an iniidel for holding sentiments, on the sub- 
ject, which I now find were held by cne whom multitudes 
of Christians have delighted to honour. 

I shall endeavour to show, from the Scriptures of truth, 
that the whole man, whatever are his component parts, suf- 
fers privation of life, in what we call death. 

Turn to the account of man's creation, Gen. 2 : 7. "And 
the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and 
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ; and man became 
a living soul." God said to this man, this " living soul," 
without excepting any part of him, k * But of the tree of the 
knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it ; for in 
the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Or, 
as the margin reads, "Dying THOU shalt die.''' What 
part of man is excepted in this denunciation ? Surely no 
part. To say, the mind, which was principal in the offence, 
was exempt from death is an absurdity ; or, to make its 
death to be no more than a state of unhappiness, in my 
judgment, is doing violence to the testimony of God. That 
unhappiness was involved, as a consequence of sin, is ad- 
mitted ; but, that that was the penalty for transgression is 
denied. The penalty is death. In explaining the penalty 
God himself says to man, Gen. 3 : 19, " In the sweat of thy 
face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground ; 
tor out of it wast THOU taken : for dust thou art, and unto 
lust shalt thou return." Compare this with Job 7: 21, 
'* For now shall I sleep in the dust," &c. And the angel 
says to Daniel, chap. 12: 2, "Many of them that sleep in 
the dust of the earth shall awake," &c. It was to the whole 
man that his Maker said, " Dying thou shalt die ;" and at 
death there is a cessation of all consciousness, as truly as 
that man had no consciousness before his creation : if it 
were not so it would not be death, but only a change in the 
mode of man's life. But we will proceed in the Scripture 
testimony. 

The doctrine that the whole man sunk in death was held 
by the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. Jacob says, Gen. 
37 : 35, ''I will go down into the grave unto my son mourn- 
ing." Job 3: 12-19, says, " Why did the knees prevent 
me ? or why the breasts that I should suck ? For now 
should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: 
then had I been at rest, with kings and counsellors of the 
earth, which built desolate places for themselves ; cr with 



THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 



5 



princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver: or 
as a hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which 
never saw light. There the wicked cease from troubling ; 
and there the weary be at rest. There the prisoners rest 
together ; they hear not the voice of the oppressor. The 
small and great are there ; and the servant is free from his 
master." Also Job 14: 10-12, "But man dieth, and 
wasteth away ; yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is 
he ? As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decay- 
eth and drieth up : So man lieth down, and riseth not : till 
the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised 
out of their sleep.'' 1 See chap. 17: 13, " If I wait, the grave 
is mine house ;" also 16th verse, " They shall go down to 
the bars of the pit, when our rest together is in the dust.'' 
David deprecates the approach of death — and why, if he is 
going at once into the presence of God ? For he himself 
tells us, in God's " presence is fulness of joy ;" and yet he 
speaks in the following strains, Ps. 6 : 5, " For in death 
there is no remembrance of thee : in the grave who shall 
give thee thanks?" Again, Psa. 88: 10-12, "Wilt thou 
show wonders to the dead ? shall the dead arise and praise 
thee? Selah. Shall thy loving-kindness be declared in ihe 
grave ? or thy faithfulness in destruction ? Shall thy won- 
ders be known in the dark ? and thy righteousness in the 
land of forge tfulness ?" Surely this is strong language ; but 
again he says, Psa. 115: 17, "The dead praise not the 
Lord, neither any that go down into silence." Surely such 
language as this cannot be consistent with the common 
theory in regard to the state of the dead. And that David 
was not mistaken, Peter affirms in Acts 2 : 34, " For David 
is not ascended into the heavens." ]Sow David could not, 
it seems to me, so earnestly desire to live longer on the 
earth if he believed the moment of his deaih would put him 
in possession of the immediate presence and glory of God : 
and besides, he declares, Psa. 17 : 15, "I shall be satisfied 
when I awake in thy likeness." Now if this was before the 
resurrection, then David would be satisfied without a resur- 
rection : if it was not till after the resurrection, then David 
would be in the presence of God, where " is fulness of joy," 
and yet not be satisfied, because he had not yet had his 
resurrection: i. e. he could have fulness of joy and no: 
be satisfied, if the common notion of the consciousness of 
the dead be true. 

Hezekiah says, Isa. 38: 18, 19, "For the grave cannot 
praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee; they that go down 
into the pit. cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the 
living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day." Surely if 



o 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



men go immediately to heaven, who die in the Lord, Heze- 
kiah could have praised the Lord in " nobler strains" to be 
dead than alive ; but he evidently did not understand the 
doctrine of souls living while their bodies were dead. 

Our Lord told his disciples, John 14 : 3, "And if I go and 
prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you 
unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." 
Christ does not come again at death. This is evident from 
John 21 : 22, 23, "Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he 
tarry till I come, what is that to thee ? Follow thou me. 
Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that 
disciple should not die : yet Jesus said not unto him, He 
shall not die : but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what 
is that to thee ?" Here it is clear that the disciples under- 
stood that those to whom the Lord should come would not 
die ; and hence they did not believe that the Lord comes at 
a man's death. _ Our Lord then, in the text, 14th chap., 
spoke of his coming at the resurrection, to receive his people; 
at which time they will " see him as he is" and " be like 
him ;" 1 John 3 : 2. Surely they will not be " like him" 
till they have their resurrection bodies ; or, till their "vile 
body" is " fashioned like unto his glorious body." Phil. 3 : 
21. Again, 1 Corin. 15 : 32, Paul says—" If alter the man- 
ner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what ad- 
van tageth it me, if the dead rise not ? let us eat and drink ; 
for to-morrow we die." That is, die altogether ; for, if that 
is not the meaning, there is no force in what he says. He 
evidently makes our entire future existence to depend on 
the resurrection of the dead. His reasoning, in the remain- 
ing part of that chapter, is entirely on the supposition thai 
there are only two states —the corruptible and the incorrupt- 
ible — death and the resurrection; not a word does he hint 
d( an intermediate state of consciousness. Not only so, but 
Paul declares, 2 Timothy 4 : 8, that he does not expect his 
" crown of righteousness" till the day of Christ's " appear- 
ing ;" which day, he tells us, in the same connection, 1st 
verse, is when our Lord shall come to "judge the quick and 
the dead." 

That the soul and spirit die, or cease to have conscious- 
ness with the body, may be further proved from such texts 
as the following : 1 Cor. 5:5, " That the spirit may be 
saved in the day of the Lord Jesus:" not in the day of 
death, but "in the day of the Lord." Job 33: 18, " He 
keepeth back his soul from the pit." Psa. 22: 20, "De- 
liver ray soul from the sword." Psa. 7S : 50, " lie spared 
not their soul from death." Psa. 89 : 48, " Shall he deliver 
his soul from the hand of the grave." Psa. 94 : 17, ' Un- 



THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 



less the Lord had been my help, ray soul had quickly [mar- 
gin] dwelt in silence." Isaiah 33 : 17. " Thou hast, in love 
to mv soul, delivered it from the pit of corruption." — Ezek. 
18: 20. TJie soul that sinneth it shall die." 

The soul of our Lord Jesus Christ was, for a short time, 
subject to death for our sins. Compare Psa. 16 : 10, " Thou 
wilt not leave my soul in hell [grave] : neither wilt thou 
suffer thine Holy One to see corruption," with Acts 2 : 31— 
David ''seeing this before spake of the resurrection of 
Christ, that his soul was not left in hell [the grave] , neither 
his flesh did see corruption." Peter adds, " This Jesus 

Jesus" himself. And our Lord himself says, Matt. 26 : 38, 
"M$j soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.' 1 — Yea, 
''Christ oied for our sins according to the Scriptures" — 
Yea, God made " HIS SOUL an offering for sin." See 
1 Corin. 15: 3, and Isa. 53 : 10. 

By overlooking the true Scriptural doctrine of death, 
teachers of religion have bewildered themselves and others 
in endless speculations as to the nature of Christ's sufferings, 
and how those sufferings could be an atonement for sin : and 
they have speculated till they have driven many into an 
entire denial of Christ's dying for us. — Our Lord Jesus 
experienced the very same death that Adam and his posteri- 
ty were subject to in consequence of the original apostacy of 
man. — Adam and his posterity by necessity, as a punish- 
ment for sin — Christ voluntarily, 11 that by means of death, 
for the redemption of the transgressions under the first fes- 

eternal inheritance ;" Heb. 9: 15, which promised inherit- 
ance is " eternal life ;" for, " this is the record, that God 
has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son," 1 John 
5:11; who, by his death and resurrection, "hath abolished 
death, and hath brought life and immortality to light ;" both 
of which, [life and immortality] , by death, were bid from 
man's sight: but Christ was manifest in the flesh "that 
through death he might destroy him that hath the power of 
death, that is the devil : and deliver them who through fear 
of death were all their hfetime subject to bondage." Heb. 
2 : 14, 15. 

The Scriptures do not make death a deliverer, as it would 
be, if the saints go immediately into the presence of God, 
but they uniformly point us to the coming of Christ and the 
resurrection of the dead. Sairh our Saviour, John 5 : 2^. 
29, " The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the 
graves" [not in heaven or hell, but in their graves] " shall 
hear his voice and come forth," &c. "In this passage," 



8 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



says Milton, " those who hear, those who come forth, are 
ail described as being in the graves, the righteous as well as 
the wicked." 

Again, 1 Corinth. 15 : 52, ' ; The trumpet shall sound and 
the dead shall be raised." These dead, Paul had previously 
told us, are they that sleep in Jesus; v. 13. "In such a 
sleep," says Milton, " I should suppose Lazarus to have 
been lying, if it were asked whither his soul betook itself 
during those four days of death. The words of Christ 
themselves," he adds, " lead to this conclusion: John 11: 
11, 13, ' our friend Lazarus sleepeth ; but I go that I may- 
awake him out of sleep : howbeii. Jesus spake of his death ;' 
which death, if the miracle were true, must have been real. 
This," Milton continues, ''is continued by the circum- 
stances of Christ's raising him ; v. 43 ; 1 he cried with a loud 
voice, Lazarus, come forth.' If the soul of Lazarus, that is, 
if Lazarus himself was not within the grave, why did Christ 
call on the lifeless body which could not hear? If it were 
the soul he addressed, why did he call it from a place where 
it was not ? Had he intended to intimate that the soul was 
separated from the body, he would have directed his eyes to 
the quarter whence the soul of Lazarus might be expected 
to return, — namely, from heaven : tor to ca;l from the grave 
what is not there, is like seeking the living among the 
dead, which the angel reprehended as ignorance among the 
disciples, Luke 24 : 5." 

With one more extract from Milton I will close this pari 
of the subject, and then take up more fully objections. On 
1 Pet. 3 : 19, " By which aiso he went and preached unto 
the spirits in prison," Milton says, ** literally, in guard, or, 
as the Syriac version renders it, in sepulchres, in ike grave, 
which means the same ; for the grave is the common guar- 
dian of all till the day of judgment. What therefore the 
apostle says more fully, chap. 4 : 5, 6, ; who shall give 
account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the 
aead ; for, for this cause was the gospel preached also to 
them that are dead,' he expresses it in this place by a meta- 
phor, 'the spirits that are in guard;' it follows therefore 
*' 7 the spirits are dead." 

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 

t. It is said — Our Lord told the thief l< To-day shalt thou 
be. with me in paradise." 

If by to-day we are to understand that literal day that our 
Lord hung upon the cross, it is not so easy to prove that it 
r.ook place, from the fact that three dars afterwards the 
" same Jesus" told Mary, John 20: 17; "I not yet 



THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 



9 



ascended to my Father." So, then, the thief could not have 
been in paradise with Christ before our Lord himself had 
ascended. But if by to-day is only to be understood quickly, 
or in a short time, it may be answered, that at Jesus' resur 
rection " many of the saints that slept arose, and came out 
of their graves after his [Christ's] resurrection." Christ 
was the u first born from the dead among many brethren." 
See Col. 1 : 18, and Rom. S : 29. Thus the promise of 
Christ was fulfilled to the thief, if he was among those who 
arose with the Saviour. 

But again. The punctuation in our Bibles is not inspira- 
tion, but the work of men. Then this text may be read 
thus ; " Verily, I say unto thee to-day ; Thou shalt be with 
me in paradise." Or, as some of the Greek copies of the 
New Testament read the thief's prayer — " Lord, remember 
me in the day of thy coming" The answer then is — Verily, 
I say unto thee, this day [i. e. this day of Christ's coming, 
of which the thief had spoken] thou shalt be with me in 
paradise. 

It was an assurance to the thief that his prayer was ac- 
cepted ; and that in the day that our Lord should come into 
his kingdom the supplicant should have a part in it. 

2. It is said — " Paul desired to depart and be with Christ, 
&c. ; and therefore, he must have believed in the conscious 
state of those who have left the body." But we will let 
Paul explain himself. He says, Phil. 1 : 23 — "I am in a 
strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with 
Christ ; which is far better." Compare this with 2 Cor. 5 : 
1 to 8 — " For we know, that if our earthly house of this 
tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an 
house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in 
this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon, with our 
house which is from heaven ; if so be that being clothed we 
shall not be found naked ; for we that are in this tabernacle 
do groan, being burdened : not for that we would be un- 
clothed, but clothed upon, that M ORTALITY might be 
swallowed up of life." 

Here the apostle shows, that his dceire was not to be 
■unclothed, or to be a " disembodied spirit," but to be clothed 
upon with his house from heaven ; for, " this mortal shall 
put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying 
that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory." Now. 
it was for this the apostle waited ; and that was what he 
desired, as may further be seen by Rom. 8 : 23, — " We 
ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, 
to wit, the redemption of our BODY." From all this, it 
appears to me, it is evident that Paul's desire was to be 



10 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



absent from the mortal body and to be present with the 
Lord, not in an unclothed state, but in his heavenly, or im- 
mortal body. This state the apostle did not expect till the 
appearing of Christ, as is evident from 2 Timothy 4 : 8, — 
There is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the 
Lord the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and 
not to me oniy, but unto all them also that love his appear- 
ing." All the saints are to have their crowns at the Lord s 
appearing. 

3. It is said — li Moses and Elias appeared with our Lord 
at his transfiguration, and therefore they must have been in 
a conscious state." That I admit. Elijah w r as translated 
and did not die. As to Moses, it seems likely that he was 
raised from the dead, from the consideration that Jude tells 
us, 9th verse, that Michael had a dispute, about the body of 
Moses, with the devil. Now what was that dispute ! My 
opinion is this : The devil had no clear idea of the resurrec- 
tion, and supposed that all the human family that he could 
bring under the power of death had perished for ever. Up 
to the time of Moses, one only* viz. Enoch, had escaped 
death. Satan, in his own estimation, had proved Thus far a 
most triumphant conqueror. He saw Moses, like Enoch, 
walking with God, and doubtless expected that he too would 
be translated, that he should not see death ; but Moses 
committed a trespass at the waters of Meribah, and the Lord 
told him he should die. What malicious joy must have 
filled the devil's heart when he heard that Moses was to die ! 
such a triumph Satan had hardly anticipated. Next Satan 
sees of Moses he stands in the presence of God. As he had 
no knowledge of the resurrection, how natural in his "con- 
tention" with Michael, would it be for the devil to accuse 
• jrod with falsehood ! As though he should say — 1 1 God 
said Moses should die, but he did not. for there he stands in 
rhe presence of God." Michael did not inform the adver- 
sary that Moses had been raised from the dead, but simply 
said, " The Lord rebuke thee." 

That Moses was raised from the dead is strongly probable, 
from the fact that he was an eminent type of Christ. See 
Deut. 18 : 15, 18 — " The Lord thy God will raise up unto 
thee a Prophet — -like unto me" &c. The probability that 
Moses was raised from the dead is quite as strong as th6 
conjecture of our commentators, that the devil wanted to 
rind the body of Moses, to lead the Israelites into idolatry 
with it, and hence disputed with Michael about it. 

If my view is correct, Moses, though he died, was raised 
from the dead, and hence at the transfiguration the kingdom 
of God was presented in miniature; Chris' t. his glory- 



THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 



1] 



Elias, the representative of all that will be changed without 
dying, and Moses, the representative of all that sleep in 
death. 

If it still he urged against this view that the apostle says, 
Col. 1: 18, that Christ is "the first born from the dead," 

1 answer, first — He is the first born from the dead in an 
eminent sense ; that is, upon the certainty of his resurrec- 
tion depended the resurrection of all men : if he, therefore, 
were not raised, none of the dead ever would have been, or 
ever will be. This is the apostle's argument throughout the 
15th chap, of 1st Corinth. 

Again ; it is not true, in an absolute sense, that Christ was 
the first born from the dead ; for Elisha raised the widow's 
son, of whom it was expressly said " the child was dead;" 

2 Kings 4 : 32. Our Lord also raised several from the dead 
before his crucifixion. 

Again, I remark : Our Lord was the first born from the 
dead " among many brethren." He gave assurance, John 
5 :25, that " The hour is coming and now is, when the 
dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God : and they that 
hear shall live." That hour came when our Saviour hung 
on the cross and " cried with a LOUD VOICE— and gave 
up the ghost ;" then " the rocks rent ; and the graves were 
opened ; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 
and came out of the graves after his resurrection," &c. 
This company, I apprehend, constitute the " many bre- 
thren," among whom Christ was " the first born from the 
dead," and are the " first fruit" with "Christ," and the 
pledge of the resurrection of all that sleep in Jesus ' at his 1 
second ' coming. 1 

Hence, we may understand the apostle, not as teaching 
that Christ was the first ever raised from the dead ; but, a» 
first, because the resurrection of all others depended upon 
him ; and the first whose personal, resurrection quickened 
others to life, even the "many brethren" of whom he speaks. 

4. A brother writes me, saying — " The Saviour saith — 
Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." 
This, he supposes, disproves my idea of the sleep of the dead 
saints. But if that brother will look at that text with the 
context, I think he will see, first — that the subject of dis- 
course was the resurrection of the saints, and not about an 
intermediate state. Look at the subject, John 11: 23, 26. 
" Jesus saith unto her, thy brother shall rise again. Martha 
saith unto him, I know he shall rise again in the resurrectb**. 
at the last day" It seems she had no id^a that he had gaK 
to heav?7t. ' Jesus saith unto her, I am, the resurrection and 
fce life ; he that believeth in me, though he were dead 



12 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



r when the resurrection of the last day comes] yet shall he 
live : and whosoever liveth [or is alive when that day comes] 
and believeth in me, shall never die 11 — shall not die at all 
but be "changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.' 
See 1 Cor. 15: 51, 52. 

Again, this brother says, "The Saviour, to convince the 
Sadducees of the certainty of the resurrection, declares that 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were living." 

We do noX ahvays pay that attention to the subject of dis- 
course that we ought in interpreting the Scriptures. Let u? 
look at this portion of the Bible. Luke 20 : 27-— 38.— The 
Sadducees, who "deny that there is any resurrection," 
come to our Lord and present what they suppose to be a 
strong case. Our Saviour tells them, that " They that are 
accounted w r orthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection 
from the dead," &c, " can die no more." The expression 
denotes that they had once died. He adds — " Now that the 
dead are [to be] raised, even Moses showed at the bush, 
when he called the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God 
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not the God of 
the dead, [as he would be, if there is to be no resurrection] 
but of the living." Therefore, there will be a resurrection 
of the dead ; or else Moses' language does not prove the 
resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is evident 
that there can be no force in the allusion to Moses, unless 
it was brought to prove the resurrection of the dead, and the 
allusion shows us that the life of those patriarchs depended 
upon such resurrection : and " God, who calleth things 
which be not as though they were," [see Rom. 4: 17] 
counted Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as living, because they 
shall surely come up in the resurrection to life eternal ; and 
let us not " be ignorant, that one day is with the Lord as a 
thousand years, and a thousand years as one day ;" so that 
the time from the death of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to 
their resurrection, is as no time with God. Now, if those 
patriarchs were actually then living, how does our Lord's 
appeal to Moses prove the resurrection ? It might prove the 
existence of spirits, but not the resurrection, the very thing 
it was designed to prove. 

But let us look at this case further. The Sadducees after 
stating the case add — " Therefore in the resurrection whose 
wife ot them is she?" It seems there was no difficulty in 
their minds about the intermediate state, though the seven 
husbands and t^e wife had all gone into it. If our Lord had 
taught consciousness in the intermediate state, it seems most 
natural to suppose the Sadducees would have inquired: 
'Whose wife is she now ? for they are all alive." But they 



THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 



13 



pass over the intermediate state to the resurrection ; evident- 
ly, to mv mind, because no such doctrine was held by the 
Jews, or our Lord, as the dead being conscious till the resur- 
rection. The very idea is a palpable absurdity. The wages 
of sin, and the penalty of the law, is death. And that which 
introduces us into a state, in which, we " know more than 
ail the world," as it is said, often, of a man when he dies, 
cannot be death, hut a far superior life. I conclude, the 
Scripture testimony is true — " the dead know not any thing.'' 1 
If I am called an " infideV for that, be it so. 

5. It is said — "That the souls of the righteous have a 
sensible state of existence separate from the body, we learn 
from the circumstance of Paul's being caught up to Paradise ; 
he says — ' Whether in the body or out of the body I cannot 
tell; God knoweth.' Now, if he had believed in the un 
conscious state of the dead, he would have supposed that he 
must have been in the body, and of course would have ex- 
pressed no doubt on the subject." 

In reply. I might say — If Paul had believed in a conscious 
state after life bad become extinct, and that the spirit of man 
exists separate from the body in a sensible state, " he would 
have supposed that he must have been" out o/the body, and 
of course would have expressed no doubts on the subject." 
But his expression, I apprehend, only indicates that the 
revelation was made in such a manner as that man could not 
explain it.' 

6. It is said — " That our Lord confirmed the belief that 
the spirit has a conscious state separate from the body, by 
saying to his disciples, after the resurrection, ' Handle me 
and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me 
have.' " The error here, I suppose, is in supposing that our 
Lord must have reference to the spirit of a man. Angels 
are spirits, but have not a body of "flesh and bones;" yet 
they have, doubtless, bodies in some form, though spiritual. 

7. It is said — Rev. 6 : 9 — 11, proves the conscious being 
of the righteous before the resurrection — "And when he 
had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of 
them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testi- 
mony which they held : and they cried with a loud voice, 
saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not 
judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth ? 
And white robes were given unto every one of them ; audit 
was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little 
season, until their fellow-servants also, and their brethren 
that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled." 

Let me ask the objector — Had those souls any conscious 
being at the time John saw them and heard their cry ? So 
2 



14 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



far from it, they were not born, and had no being at all, 
only in the purpose of God, for several hundred years after 
John saw them. It was under the fifth seal, or bloody per- 
secutions of papacy, that John viewed this scene. And the 
prophecy was evidently given for the comfort and encourage- 
ment of Christians that might be called to suffer under the 
papal power. That persecution would be long ; and there 
*vould, hence, seem to be a disregard, on God's part, to the 
sufferings of the saints ; and they are represented as crying, 
'how long," &c, and their feelings are clearly expressed 
by Isaiah, 49: 14, — " But Zion said, the Lord hath forsaken 
me, and my Lord hath forgotten me." But God causes it 
to be written for the comfort of his church, in that sorrowful 
age, that he regards all their sufferings, and will in due time 
avenge their blood. The Lord told Cain that — " The voice 
of thy brother's blood crieth to me from the ground." 
Does that prove that Abel's blood had a conscious being 
and a tongue to talk ? The expressions denote no more than 
that God regards whatever his people suffer, and will avenge 
the injuries done to them, though he may seem to delay ; 
and this is written for the comfort of the saints while passing 
through their trials. To suppose the feelings expressed, 
under the fifth seal, by the martyrs, were their feelings 
after they left this world, is to suppose they were not happy, 
if they were conscious ; but in God's " presence there is ful- 
ness of joy ;" and, therefore, the feelings expressed by the 
martyrs, if expressed in words at all, must have been before 
they left this world, and while yet in a state of suffering. 

8. The case of the rich man and Lazarus, Luke 16, is 
supposed to form an insurmountable objection to the theory 
of the sleep of the dead. I admit there are difficulties in this 
text, but the difficulties are not so great to harmonize this 
with the unconscious state of the dead, previous to the resur- 
rection, as to harmonize the common theory with the mass 
of Scripture testimony that the dead are asleep — that they 
" know not anything," &,c. We wilf now examine this case. 

By parables as well as facts the Bible communicates in- 
struction. In order to a right understanding of the speaker 
or writer, we should first inquire what was the object in 
view, or the instruction intended to be imparted. This we 
can only learn from the text, context, and comparing it with 
other portions of revelation. 

There appear to have been several points intended to be 
impressed upon the people, by our Saviour, in the text now 
under consideration ; and the instruction is the same whether 
it be considered a parable or history of facts. 



THE INTERMEDIATE SI ATE. 



15 



" That this is only a parable," says Whitby, in his Com- 
mentary on this place, " and not a real history of what was 
done, is evident; (1.) Because we find this very parable in 
the Germara Babylonicum, whence it is cited by Mr. Sher- 
ingham, in the preface to his Joma. (2.) From the circum- 
stances of it, viz., the rich man's lifting up his eyes in hell, 
and seeing Lazarus in Abraham? s bosom — his discourse with 
Abraham — his complaint of being tormented with flames — 
and his desire that Lazarus might be sent to cool his tongue : 
if all this be confessedly parable, why should the rest, which 
is the very parable in the Germara, be accounted a history ?" 
Lightfoot r also, remarks upon this subject — " Whoever be- 
lieves this not a parable, but a true story, let him believe 
also those little friars, wmose trade it is to show the monu- 
ments at Jerusalem to pilgrims, and point exactly to the 
place where the house of the 'rich glutton' stood." The 
outlines of this parable are found in a work, supposed to 
have been written while the Jews were in Babylon, or short- 
ly after, called the " Germara Babylonicum." It was, most 
likely, founded on the pagan notion of the future state ; and 
which some portion of the Jews imbibed. Their own Scrip- 
tures revealed no such doctrine. Their intercourse with the 
pagans, during their captivity, would naturally lead some of 
them to imbibe the notions of their masters. 

If it be said, our Lord would not have used a story not 
founded in fact to convey instruction, but would have cor- 
rected the error : I answer, First, There is no evidence that 
the sentiments expressed in the fc< Germara " were adopted 
to any great extent among the Jews, though the Pharisees, 
to whom our Lord spoke, were doubtless familiar with the 
story. Second, There is no evidence that our Lord ever 
corrected, in positive language, the sentiment, prevalent, to 
some extent among the Jev s, of the transmigration of 
souls, borrosved also from the pagans ; and which even 
the disciples had imbibed, as appears from John 9 : 2, where 
they ask — " Who did sin, this man or his parents, that he 
was BORN blind?" 

Those who oppose the unconscious state of the dead, 
maintain that " disembodied spirits" can talk, &c. Let me 
ask them one question : — Couid Lazarus have come back 
and warned the rich man's brethren without being raised from 
the dead, or without a resurrection ? If you answer, " Fes," 
L reply — It is evident from this very parable that he could 
not : for Abraham says, " If they hear not Moses and the 
prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one ROSE 
from the dead :" which shows, that if Lazarus did go to the 



16 



THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 



rich man's brethren he must have a resurrection from the 
dead to do so. Hence it is evident that "disembodied spi- 
rits" cannot talk and hold converse with men, and of course 
are not conscious ; for angels can, and have appeared to 
men, and talked with them ; and if dead men were con- 
scious they might do the same without a resurrection : but 
Lazarus could not do it unless he "rose from the dead," 
our Lord being judge; — therefore, our Lord being judge, 
dead men are incapable of making communications to men : 
hence, this very discourse of our Saviour, instead of proving 
the consciousness of dead men, proves just the reverse. 

The Greek word here translated hell is 11 hades," which, 
as Wakefield, I think, truly observes, " nowhere means 
hell — gehenna — in any author whatsoever, sacred or profane." 
It was not. therefore, "beyond the grave," hades — but in 
the grave. Hence, if it is a matter-of- fact case, the rich man, 
in his grave, could see, hear, and talk ! And mark, our 
Saviour does not say his spirit did these things, but the rich 
man himself . Now he had expressly said '"the rich man 
died and was buried [literally] in the grave." The Bible 
affirms, in plain and positive language, that there is no know- 
ledge in the grave. See Ecc. 9 : 10. From the point then, 
where our Lord says, the rich man was buried in the grave, 
we have no authority to understand his language in any other 
light than as figurative; like "the voice of thy brother's 
blood crieth to rne from the ground;" or " the stone shall 
cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall an- 
swer it." Hab. 2 : 11. And we might just as well pretend 
that a stone or beam are conscious, and can talk, as to con- 
tend from the case of the rich man that men are conscious, 
can see, hear, and talk when they are dead and in the grave : 
unless you can first prove, from some plain and positive tes- 
timony in the Bible, that the dead are really not dead. It is 
not unusual, in the Bible, to represent things without life 
as acting and talking. See Isa. 14 : 8. Prov. 8. Psa. 93 ; 
3. Judges 9 : 7 — 15. The Pharisees were continually 
crying amidst the miracles the Saviour wrought — "What 
sign showest thou ? What dost thou work ?" By a discourse 
id which our Lord shows the folly of trusting in riches, 
and of trusting in being sons of Abraham, he also preaches 
to them, that such was their hardness of heart, and obstina- 
cy, that if one rose from the dead they would not believe. 
Our Saviour told them, on another occasion. John 5 : 46, 47, 
l * Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me. But 
If ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my 
words?" In his discourse on the rich man, he tells those 



THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 



17 



Pharisees "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, 
neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the 
dead." Let it be remembered, it was the Pharisees that 
cur Lord was addressing, in the discourse on the rich man. 
See the 14th and 15th verses of the 16th chapter of Luke. 
M And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all 
these things: and they derided him. And he said unto 
them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men ; but 
God knoweth your hearts ; for that which is highly esteemed 
among men, is abomination in the sight of God." 

Again. If the case of the rich man is to be understood as 
" a matter of fact" case, he must be presented in the resur- 
rection state ; for he has a tongue that he wants cooled, and 
is tormented in a "flame." Now, a " disembodied spirit" 
cannot be tormented in a fla?ne, nor has it a tongue that can 
be cooled with " water." 

On this text Milton writes : " Christ, for the sake of the 
lesson to be conveyed, speaks of that as present which was 
not to take place till after the day of judgment, and describes 
the dead as placed in two distinct states," but, "he by no 
means intimates any separation of the soul from the body." 
— [Treatise on Christian Doctrine. 

9. It is said, Eccl. 12 : 7, " The spirit shall return to God 
who gave it." This text is supposed to form an objection to 
the doctrine of the sleep of the dead. But it is as true of 
the wicked as of the just, that their spirit returns to God. 
So we might prove universal salvation on the principle of 
the objector. Observe : the spirit returns to God who gave 
it.' Let me ask, was it in a conscious state before it was 
given ? If not, how can it be proved that it was in a consci- 
ous state after it returns ? I do not see but we might as well 
argue, that because the body has feeling while w T e have 
life, it must have feeling after it " returns to dust." 

Solomon uses the term "spirit" in the 3d chapter 21st 
verse, to signify, the life. The term has various significa- 
tions ; one of which is, life, or breath. This returns to God, 
and by him is preserved until the resurrection, when the 
body is re-organized, and the breath, or spirit, re-enters it, 
and it stands up, once more, a "living soul." The apostle 
^aul, it seems to me, clearly makes our entire future exist- 
nce to depend on the resurrection ; for, he tells us, if the 
dead rise not, "then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ 
ire perished" They are not perished if they have conscious 
being, even though the body were never raised. 

Ezekiel, 37th chapter, sets this subject in a clear light. 
After the bones had come together, the sinews and flesh 
2* 



18 



BIBLE EXaMINER. 



come mpon them, and the skin covered them, he then pro- 
phesied, saying, come from the four winds, O breath, and 
breathe upon these slain, that they live — and the breath 
came into them and they lived." Nothing is here said 
about their souls coming from heaven ; but the breath came 
and they lived. That breath had returned to God, at death, 
as "the dust returned to dust;" but was no more in a 
conscious state than the mouldering body, till the resurrec- 
tion ; then the entire man awakes, and " lives again." 

10. A brother, who opposes my views, refers to 1 Thess. 
4: 13, 14. ''But I would not have you to be ignorant, 
brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow 
not, even as others which have no hope. For if ye believe 
that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which 
sleep in Jesus will God bring with him." On this text the 
brother says : '* He will not bring their bodies, for they are 
already here and will arise to meet him, instead of being 
brought down with him. It must be some part of the dead 
which God will bring with him. What part it is, which will 
come then, it is not hard to determine :" t. e. their souls. 

Let us analyze the text, and see if it does not teach the 
doctrine I advocate. What is the doctrine contained in it? 
First : The dead " are asleep." Second : They are not to 
sleep always — for, they shall have a resurrection, just as 
certain as that Christ was raised. , Third : The proof of it 
is this : " Jesus died and rose again" — " God BROUGHT 
again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ," (See Heb. 13 : 
20,) " even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring 
with him:" not from heaven, but "from the dead." Not 
a word does Paul say of their " being brought down with 
him." No. God brought Christ from the dead; that is the 
apostles' argument ; therefore those that sleep in Jesus, God 
will also bring from the dead ; and of this fact " I would not 
have you to be ignorant, brethren, that ye sorrow not as 
others which have no hope" of a resurrection. The apostle, 
in the verses following, goes on to tell the time when the 
resurrection of them that sleep in Jesus will take place ; viz : 
at the coming of the Lord ; but says not one word about the 
Lord bringing their " souls" from heaven. 

If it be said, The expression, "bring with him," makes 
it necessary to understand it as something done at the same 
lime, I answer, the same apostle says, Eph. 2: 5, God 
"hath quicRened us together with Christ." Does that im- 
ply that Paul was quickened at the " same time'' that Christ 
rose from the deac. ? Surely he was a bloody persecutor 
some years after that. "With him," then, signifies no more 



THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 



19 



man the certainty of the event. As God brought Christ, the 
head, from the dead, so the Church, which is Christ's body. 
God will bring with him. They will not remain under the 
power of death seeing God brought up their head. But " If 
Christ be not raised, then they that are fallen asleep in Christ 
are perished." See 1 Cor. 15: 17, 13. 

I will now give my own opinion in regard to the doctrine 
of an intermediate state of conscious being, between death 
and the resurrection. I believe it to be a Papal corruption 
of the word of God. Papacy commenced pardoning living 
men's sin, but could not make money fast enough that way. 
and so conjured up an intermediate state, in which they 
manufactured their " Purgatory, Limb us Infantum, Limhus 
patrum," &c. Then the people must pay money to the 
priest to baptize their children, to keep their souls out ot 
"Limbus Infantum," or that purgatory where they were 
taught i: all the souls of unbaptized children would go, until 
original sin is well paid away by the help of holy masses said 
for them." " Money, money, money," now the priest could 
cry, and cry it too to his entire satisfaction; for he had 
manufactured his invisible conscious state, which the blind 
people could not see, and so the priest must be paid to his 
heart's content, or the souls of children and departed friends 
would be retained in purgatory ; and thus a fine field is open 
to gratify the avarice of a corrupt priesthood. And then, 
such a state of consciousness was necessary, into which to 
put departed saints, in order to make intercessors of them, 
and thus open another fruitful field to accumulate money 
and make the ignorant people wonder. Thus the way was 
fully opened for any superstition that the "Man of Sin" 
chose to practise. And how, I pray, can you prove to a 
Papist that it is unavailing for him to ask help of departed 
saints ? You cannot but admit it was right while these saints 
were upon earth, to ask their prayers ; and if, after death, 
they are in a conscious state, and in the presence of God. 
have they not as much power with God as while on earth ? 
And if so, why may we not ask their intercession now as 
while here ? How snail a Papist be answered ? Surely, the 
only Scriptural answer seems to be, — the saints who have 
died are " asleep'''- -and ''the dead hnovj not anything?' 
Therefore it is as useless to ask their intercession, as it is to 
ask that of a block, or a stone ; and is no better than asking 
the help of any other idol of wood or stone." 

It is true, that the Papists should not be taxed as the 
orig:nal propagators of the doctrine of sculs living after the 
body is dead ; they only brought the theory to perfection. 



20 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



It grew up. as Milton truly intimates, "in the schools of" 
Heathen " philosophy." But on that point I may say more 
hereafter. Wherever it originated its fruit has been " evil, 
and only evil, and that continually." It has given birth to 
all the Papal worshipping of saints, with all the superstitions 
connected therewith ; it has turned off the eyes of Christians 
from the hope of the gospel, viz : the personal revelation of 
the Lord from heaven, so that the second coming of our 
blessed Lord has almost ceased to be an object of desire or 
expectation ; and the Christian hope, to a great extent, ha9 
been changed to an expectation of death, the king of terrors, 
instead of looking for our Lord, the king of peace, from 
heaven to "change our vile bodies." It has led thinking 
men into infidelity, and it has led, and is leading ministers 
and members of the churches into a denial of the resurrec 
tion of the body. And why should they not deny it? If 
the saints are in a conscious state after death, and of course 
perfectly happy, for what, I pray, do they want to come 
back after their bodies, which have been turned to corrup- 
tion ? If it is answered, " To perfect their happiness," — I 
reply, "In thy presence is fulness of joy." Ps. 16: 11. 
What more can the saints have than " fulness of joy ?" If 
they go in their disembodied state into the presence of God, 
and are perfectly happy, it would seem, it must be a repul- 
sive idea to think of ever again entering a body which was, 
while in it, a source of trouble, and caused them to " groan." 

How could Paul say, 1 Cor. 15, "If the dead rise not, 
then they that have fallen asleep in Christ are perished ?" 
if the saints go into a conscious state of blessedness the mo- 
ment they die ? If it be said, Paul means their bodies are 
perished, I reply, one would think that was no great cause 
of regret, if their souls are perfectly happy without their 
bodies. It seems to me, that Paul intended to teach — that 
our entire future existence depends on a resurrection from 
The dead ; and if there be no resurrection, then, at death, 
man ceases to have existence, and will live no more for ever. 

This intermediate conscious state, I apprehend, is what, 
has entirely hid the glory of the resurrection from the minds 
of men, and led many ministers and others to deny that there 
is any resurrection of the body ; and I should not think 
strange, if the world does not come to an end soon, if the 
churches, so called, should deny altogether, that there is 
any resurrection of the dead ; or take the ground that " the 
resurrection is past, already ;" that is, say, " a man receives 
his resurrection body when he dies, and never returns for 
the body he put off at death:" thus " overthrowing the 
faith of some." See 2 Tim. 2 : IS. 



THE STATE OF THE DEAD. -No. 2. 



"TO DIE IS GAIN." — Phil. 1:21. 

The above expression is one of the main pillars, if not the 
main one, that is relied upon to disprove the doctrine that 
4 the dead know not anything.'" I shall now suggest an in- 
terpretation of this phrase, differing from any of my previ 
ous thoughts. 

Begin at the 12th verse of the 1st chap. Phil. " 1 would 
ye should understand, brethren, that the things which have 
happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the FUR- 
THERANCE of the gospel; so that MY BONDS in 
[margin — " for"] Christ are manifest in all the palace, [Cae- 
sar's court] and in all other places. And many of the bre- 
thren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are MUCH 
MORE BOLD to speak the word without fear. Some in- 
deed preach Christ even of envy and strife, and some of 
good will. The one preach Christ of contention, not sin- 
cerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds ; but the other 
of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gos- 
pel. What then ? notwithstanding every way, whether in 
pretence or in truth, CHRIST is preached; and I therein 
rejoice, yea, and I will rejoice. For I know that this shall 
turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of 
the spirit of Jesus Christ, according to my earnest expec- 
tation and my hope, and that in nothing I shall be ashamed, 
but that with all boldness, as always, so now also, Christ 
shall be MAGNIFIED in my body, whether by LIFE OR 
DEATH. For to me to live, is Christ, [is to " magnify' 1 
Christ,] and " to die is gain," to Christ and his gospel; as 
hitherto "the things which have happened unto me have 
fallen out unto the furtherance of the gospel," so I shall 
£< magnify" Christ still, even if I " die" for him." 

In the previous verses the apostle had declared that all 
which had befallen him hitherto had only tended to further 
the gospel ; and at the 20th verse, he expresses his strong 
confidence that still, " Christ shall be magnified" in him, 
" whether it be by life, or by death." Thus he expresses 
his purpose to magnify his Master at all events — whether it 
was by living to labour and suffer for Christ, or by dying far 
his cause : either w T ay he was determined Christ should be 
jnagnified. In the next verse he expresses the same confL 



4ence, that whichever it should be, that such would be th* 
result — his Lord would get glory to himself: hence he says, 
•'For to me to live is Christ," [to magnify Christ] "and 
to die is gain." — " Gain" for whom ? I answer, for Christ ; 
for, thereby Christ will be magnified even more than by my 
life, or he will not suffer me to die ; for he has the keys of 
death ; and so long as he sees he can be more magnified by 
my life than by "my death, so long my life will be continued ; 
but when he sees that it would be 11 gain 11 to his cause for 
me to die, a martyr, then I shall magnify him by death. 
4 But if I live in the flesh, [a corruptible state] this is the 
fruit of my labour," [what is the fruit of his labour 1 suffer- 
ing and pain] " yet what I shall choose I wot [know] not. 
For I am in a strait betwixt two," [" betwixt two" what? 
Do you say, whether to live or die? I think not, but] 
" having a desire to depart and be with Christ ; which is far 
better," than either to live in the flesh or die. The contrast, 
I apprehend, was not between life or death, but between 
life and death on the one hand, and being with Christ on the 
other. If he could have his choice, he would desire that 
" mortality might be swallowed up of life," when he should 
"be with Christ," in preference to living in this corruptible 
Btate, or dying. It was in other words, " immortality " that 
Paul desired — a perfect deliverance from corruption and 
death both: knowing that when he "who is our life shall 
appear, then' he should " appear witli him in glory." Hence 
he was looking for the Lord Jesus from heaven, to change 
his vile body, as he says in the third chapter of the same 
Epistle. And he further says, that at present, while in this 
corruptible state, he labours and suffers — " If by any means 
I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." This 
shows that Paul was looking not to death for deliverance, or 
to be with Christ, but to the resurrection, or a change of the 
vile body, which would be equivalent. 

I think the meaning of the 21st verse is expressed in the 
above paraphrase, and is, as if the apostle had said — 

" If I live I shall magnify Christ ; and if I die Christ 
shall gain still greaier glory in me, or by me." It expresses 
the perfect confidence Paul had in leaving himself entirely 
in the hand of his Lord and Saviour : — whatever befell hirn, 
Christ would be magnified, "whether by life or death;" 
and such was his entire devotion and consecration to his Re- 
deemer, that he should be perfectly satisfied, whether it was 
ordered that he should die or live, and he knew not which 
to choose ; but he had a desire to depart from this corrupti- 
ble state, or have his vile body changed, and be with Christ 
which was far better thm either to live her? nr ft?. 



THE STATE OF THE DEAD. -No. 3. 

"Gehenna" the Greek word translated " Hell," and 
used in the New Testament in relation to the punishment 
of the wicked, a learned author says. " Does not occur in 
the Septuagent Greek of the Old Testament, nor in any 
classic author in the world. The term does not occur in any 
letter or communication to the Gentiles. It was understood 
by the Jews and employed only in discourses with them. It 
occurs 12 times in the New Testament : 7 times in Matt. ; 
3 times in Mark ; once in Luke ; and once in James. Three 
of the these the term appears to be used figuratively ; viz., I 
Matt. 5 : 22 ; 23 : 15 ; and James 3:6." 

The places where this word occurs are Matt. 5 : 22, 29, 
30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33. Mark 9 : 43, 45, 47. Luke 
12:5. James 3: 6. 

. " Hades," is a Greek word which occurs eleven times in 
the New Testament, and is ten times translated "hell" and 
once "grave," viz., 1 Cor. 15 : 55. It is found in the follow- 
ing texts, viz., Matt. 11 : 23 ; 16: 18. Luke 10 : 15 ; 16 : 23. 
Acts 2 : 31, 27. Rev. 1 : 18 ; 20 : 13, 14. 

The Hebrew word " Sheol," of the same import as hades, 
used in the Old Testament, is translated "hell" 31 times. 
It never signifies a place of torment. How would it sound 
in the mouth of Jacob to translate " Sheol," "hell?" See 
Gen. 37 : 35. ''I will go down into hell [SheoT] unto my son 
mourning." Was Joseph, if dead, in a place of torment? 
And was Jacob so unreconciled that he wished to go into 
that place of torment also ? Our translators saw the absurd- 
ity of such a translation, and rendered it "grave ;" a per- 
fectly correct translation. 

Dr. Campbell says : — " Before the Captivity, and the Ma- 
cedonian and Roman conquests, the Jews observed the most 
profound silence upon the state of the dead, as to their hap- 
piness or misery. They spoke of it simply as a state of si- 
lence, darkness, and inactivity. But after the Hebrews min- 
gled with the Greeks and Romans they insensibly slided 
into their use of terms, and adopted some of their ideas on 
such subjects as those on which their oracles were silent. 
Even Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, adopts their word 
1 tartarus. 1 2 Pet. 2 : 4. In the original it is neither Ge- 
henna nor Hades, but Tartarus." Peter was writing to con- 
verted Gentiles. That accounts for his using that term. Dr 4 
Campbell says: — " The gates of hades [the grave] is a very 
natural periphrasis for death." He adds — " We have suffv* 
eient evidence, sacred and profane, that this is its meaning. 

1; Tartarus" signifies, rather, a place of imprisonment. 



From the foregoing facts, several thoughts arise : — 
First. There is no evidence in the Old Testament of any 
conscious existence between death and the resurrection. God 
made no revelation to the posterity of Jacob of any such 
doctrine. 

Second. The doctrine of the intermediate conscious state 
of the dead is a pagan fable, derived from the Greeks and 
Romans. 

Third. The Old Testament teaches that the dead are si- 
lent, inactive, and without knowledge. " In Sheol there is 
no knowledge." Ecc. 9: 10. 

Fourth. " Gehenna," the term sometimes employed in 
the New Testament in speaking of the punishment of the 
wicked, was used only in discourses with the Jews, who 
were perfectly familiar with its meaning, and could not well 
understand it in any other sense than that of utter destruc- 
tion. The word is derived from " Ge" — valley — and " Hin- 
nom," the name of a man. Divines studiously keep the 
true reference of the term " hell fire" — " gehenna" — out of 
sight. Says The Polyiviicrian Greek Lexicon to Me New 
Testament, " Gehenna, properly the valley of Hinnom, 
south of Jerusalem; once celebrated for the horrid worship 
of 3Ioloch, and afterwards polluted with every species of filth, 
as well as the carcases of animals, and dead bodies of male- 
factors ; to consume which, in order to avert the pestilence 
which such a mass of corruption would occasion, constant fires 
were kept burning." 

The incorrigible sinner, like the filth about Jerusalem, 
and the dead bodies of malefactors, if not utterly consumed 
would keep alive the plague in the universe; hence, they 
shall be "cast into Gehenna — hell-fire." Fear him who is 
able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna" — hell. Mat. 
10 : 23. 

Lastly. The glorious thought is presented, that though the 
"gates of hades" — the grave — for a time close their iron 
folds, and seem to say, we shall hold fast the sleeping church 
yet our blessed Lord declares that power shall be broken — 
that "the gates of the grave shall not prevail against it." 
A cheering thought truly. Some have slumbered long un- 
der the power of the grave, but Jesus will shortly descend 
from heaven with the voice of the archangel and the trump 
of God — then burst ye gates of "hades" — the grave — you 
can hold your victims no longer — your iron folds and bars 
become like the flaxen cords on Sampson's arms that were 
as though burnt with fire. Triumphing, then, shall a re- 
deemed Church stand up, made like her glorious head, to 
die no more. Blessed day — may it soon arrive. " Come 
Lord Jesus." 



THE STATE OF THE DEAD. -No. 4. 



Eccl. 12 : 7, has often been quoted in proof that there is in 
man a spirit that remains conscious when he is dead — 44 Then 
shall the dust return to the earth as it was ; and the spirit 
["breath" "life" for so the original word signifies] shall 
return to God who gave it." This is as true of the wickeo. 
man as of the good ; and it just as truly proves universal 
salvation as it proves that a man is alive when he is dead. 
But until it can be proved that this spirit, whatever it is, had 
consciousness before God gave it to man, it never can be 
proved, from this text, that it has consciousness after it re- 
turns whence it came. The natural inference is, that the 
spirit returns to the same state that it was before man had 
consciousness. Every man knows he had no consciousness 
prior to his present organization, yet his spirit — life, breath — 
came from God and returns to God, as his body came from 
the ground and returns to the earth : and there is nothing in 
this text that can prove that that which returns to God has 
consciousness any more than the body has feeling when it 
returns to the earth. But to settle that point, the same 
writer, in the 9th chap. 5th verse, positively declares that, 
" the dead know not anything ,*" and a mere inference drawn 
from the language of a writer, must fall before a positive 
declaration of the same writer that the inference is false. 

If the doctrine of an immediate entrance into conscious 
delight, at death, is taught in the Old Testament, why did 
men of God deprecate death ? Let us note two or three 
examples. Isa. 38:1 — 5. "In those days was Hezekiah 
sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, 
came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, 
Set thine house in order ; for thou shalt die and not live. 
Then Hezekiah turned his face toward the wall, and prayed 
unto the Lord, and said, Remember now, O Lord, I be- 
seech thee, how I have walked before thee in truth, and 
with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in 
thy sight : and Hezekiah wept sore. Then came the word 
of the Lord to Isaiah, saying, Go and say to Hezekiah, Thus 
saith the Lord, the God of David thy father, I have heard 
thy prayer, I have seen thy tears : behold. I will add unto 
thy days fifteen years." After his recovery he praises God 
tor his mercy. He says, "Thou hast in love to my soul 
delivered it from the pit of corruption : the grave cannot 
praise thee ; death cannot celebrate thee : they that go down 
into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, 
he shall praise thee, as I do this day." This case shows that 



if the doctrine of conscious enjoyment, when men are dead 
is true, Hezekiah did not understand it. 

David says, Psa. 6 : 5 — " For in death there is no remem- 
brance of thee : in the grave who shall give thee thanks?" 
Psa. 88 : 10—12. " Wilt thou show wonders to the dead ? 
Shall the dead arise and praise thee ? Shall thy loving kind- 
ness be declared in the grave ? Shall thy wonders be known 
in the dark ? and thy righteousness in the land of forge tful- 
ness?" Psa. 115:17. "The dead praise not the Lord, 
neither any that go down into silence." The expressions 
show David's view of the state of the dead. Could he have 
said these things had he believed that " the dead know more 
than all the world ?" He says, Psa. 17 : 15, " As for me, 1 
will behold thy face in righteousness : I shall be satisfied, 
when I awake, with thy likeness;" not before. Hence, he 
could not have believed that he should immediately enter 
into the presence of God; because he says, Psa. 16:1.1, 
"Thou wilt show me the path of life: in thy presence is 
fulness of joy ; at thy right hand there are pleasures for ever- 
more." If Christians enter at death into the presence of 
God, in conscious enjoyment, then David is represented as 
looking to the Resurrection for satisfaction, and yet as de- 
claring there was fulness of joy before : in other words, he 
could be in the presence of God, where there is fulness of 
joy, and not be satisfied. So far as David is concerned, 
Peter settles that point, Acts 2:34; "For David is not 
ascended into the heavens." Where is David ? Acts 2 : 29, 
" The Patriarch David is both dead and buried." When he 
awakes, as he will "at the last day," with all the saints, 
then he will " be satisfied." 

We will now look more directly at the Old Testament 
doctrine on this subject. Let us begin with man's creation. 
Gen. 2:7: " And the Lord God formed man of the dust of 
the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ; 
and man became a living soul." To this living soul God 
said, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, 
thou shalt not eat of it : for in the day that thou eatest there- 
of, thou shalt surely die." Or, " dying thou shalt die," as 
the Hebrew has it. Now look at Psa. 146 : 4 ; " His breath 
goeth forth, [that is, what his Maker breathed into him] he 
returneth to his earth ; [there goes his body] in that very 
day his thoughts perish." What is there left of him? Job 
•says, chap. 14 : 10 — 12, " But man dieth and wasteth away: 
yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he ? As the 
waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth 
up : So man lieth down and riseth not : till the heavens be 
no more, they shall not awake nor be raised out of their 
sleep." 



SICE MAN AND LAZARUS, 



Luke 16th. — This portion of Scripture has been 
supposed to afford unanswerable proof that dead 
men are conscious, and that the wicked will be 
endlessly tormented. In whatever light it is viewed, 
it can prove nothing as to the final state of the sin- 
ner after the judgment* for the advocates of the 
naturai-immortal-soul theory maintain that the state 
of the rich mau was that on which he entered im- 
mediately at death : If so, it was prior to the judg- 
ment, and consequently was not his punishment, 
unless God punishes men before he judges them. 
The state of the rich man before the judgment can- 
not therefore determine at all what his rinal state 
will be. This case, then, can only affect the ques- 
tion of man's state between death and the resur- 
rection, which precedes the judgment. 

This portion of Scripture is either a literal relation 
of facts, or it is a parable. Those who maintain 
that it is a literal relation, have no less difficulty in 
explaining it than their opponents: they cannot 
explain it all literall}^ and yet they are bound to 
do so to be consistent. Let them make the attempt. 
Lazarus, covered with sores, died and was carried 
into Abraham's bosom. Will they pretend that is 
literal % 0, no, say they, it was Lazarus' soul I 
But our Lord says, Lazarus was carried into Abra- 
ham's bosom. Immortal-soulists have to say — " Not 
so, Lord — it was his soul; v thus, they contradict 
our Lord to establish their "own traditions." Let 
us see whether they succeed any better with their 
" real history" of the rich man. He died What 
became of him 1 He * : was buried :" the rich man 

:t5 buried, remember. What next ? t( In [hades, 
the grave, of course, where he was buried; impro- 
perly translated] hell he lifted up his eves, being 

85 



2 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off and Laza- 
rus in his bosom," &c. The rich man did this. Im- 
mortal-soulists say— It was his soul : but our Lord 
says, it was the rich man. Thus again they make 
void the words of Christ to establish their traditions, 
if our Lord did really give a "literal history." But 
for the sake of showing the folly of their tradition 
about the soul, we will let them have it that it was 
Lazarus' and the rich man's souls or spirits, disem- 
bodied, that are in hades. We now ask — Are 
their disembodied souls or spirits material or im- 
material ? That is, are they matter, or not matter ? 
We are answered — "They are immaterial." If so, 
they have no substance I Can that which has no 
substance be seen or touched? If they have no 
substance, they are nothing. So, the "literal his- 
tory" advocates have an immaterial rich man, with 
immaterial eyes, looking afar off and seeing imma- 
terial Lazarus, or no-substance Lazarus I Truly, 
these immaterial souls must have sharp eyes to see 
nothing! and an equally sharp understanding to 
know that nothing is Lazarus ! But this is not all. 
The immaterial (nothing) rich man desires that 
immaterial Lazarus should dip his immaterial finger 
in literal water and cool his immaterial tongue! 
And all this is "literal history" ! ! We have not 
placed the subject in this absurd position with any 
other view than merely to show the " literal history" 
advocates that they are, at least, as much involved 
in difficulty in explaining this scripture as we, who 
believe it to be a parable, and that it has no refer- 
ence to man's state in a future life. 

That it is a parable, the context shows. It is in 
a group of them, viz., the lost piece of silver — the 
lost sheep — the prodigal son, and the wasteful or 
"unjust steward," with an admonition against 
serving mammon, or riches. The Pharisees, who 
were covetous, heard all these things, and ihey 
derided him. Our Lord then proceeds in his dis- 
course with special reference to the change about 
86 



RICH MAN AND LAZARUS. 



3 



to take place in the dispensation. He says — iL The 
Law and the prophets were [preached] until John ; 
since that time the Kingdom of God is preached," 
&c. Before proceeding to an explanation of this 
Scripture, we will present the remarks and ad- 
missions of eminent men, who have been con- 
sidered orthodox, relating to its being a parable. 

Lightfoot. u Whoever believes this not to be 
a parable, but a true story, let him believe also 
those little friars, whose trade it is to show the 
monuments at Jerusalem to pilgrims, and point ex- 
actly to the place where the house of the 1 rich 
glutton 7 stood. Most accurate keepers of anti- 
quity indeed ! who, after so many hundreds of 
years, such overthrows of Jerusalem, such devas- 
tations and changes, can rake out of the rubbish the 
place of so private a house, and such a one too, that 
never had any being, but merely in parable. And 
that it was a parable, not only the consent of all 
expositors may assure us, but the thing itself speaks 
it. 

u The main scope and design of it seems this — 
to hint the destruction of the unbelieving Jews, 
who, though they had Moses and the prophets, did 
not believe them — nay, would not believe, though 
one (even Jesus) arose from the dead. For that 
conclusion of the parable abundantly evidenceth 
what it aimed at : If they hear not Moses and the 
prophets, 6fc. ,; — Heb. and Talm. Exerc, in Luke xvi. 
19. 

Whitby. " That this is only a parable, and not 
a real history of what was actually done, is evi- 
dent : 1. Because we find this very parable in the 
Gemara Babylonicum, whence it is cited by Mr. 
Sheringham, in the preface to his Joma. 2. From 
the circumstances of it, viz., the rich man's lifting 
up his &yes in hell, and seeing Lazarus in Abraham 1 s 
bosom., his discourse with Abraham, his complaint 
of being tormented with flames, and his desire that 
Lazarus might be sent to to cool his tongue ; and if 

'87 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



all this be confessedly parage, why should the rest, 
which is the very parable in the Gemara, be ac- 
counted history V- Annot. in loc. 

Wakefield. Ver. 23, u In the grave: en to hade. 
and, cornformably to this representation, he is 
spoken of as having a body, ver. 24. It must be 
remembered, that hades nowhere means hell — ge- 
henna — in any author whatsoever, sacred or profane: 
and also, that our Lord is giving his hearers a 
parable. (Matt. xiii. 34,) and not apiece of real his- 
tory. To them who regard the narration as a 
reality, it must stand as an unanswerable argument 



meaning of hades is the state of death; because the 
term sepulchrum or grave, is not strictly applicable 
to such as have been consumed by fire., &c. See 
ver. 30.? J Note in loc. 

Dr. Adam Clarke remarks on Matt. 5: 26 — -''Let 
it be remembered, that by the general consent of 
all, (except the basely interested.) no metaphor is 
ever to be produced in proof of a doctrine. In the 
things that concern our eternal salvation, we need 
the most pointed and express evidence on which to 
establish the faith of our souls." Bishop Lowth 
says — K Parable is that kind of allegory which con- 
sists of a continued narration of fictitious or accom- 
modated events, applied to the illustration of some 
important truth/' 

We state it then as a principle, that no parable 
is to be used as teaching doctrine not elsewhere 
explicitly revealed. Parables are used only to 
illustrate some truth already known, or partially so, 
or to prepare the way to present a truth not vet 
fully developed, but about to be, either by facts or 
explicit instruction. The scope or design of the 
parable is what we are to seek, and not pervert 
the truth of God by the assumption that the parable 
is a reality that "has been or may be nor. yet, 
that every item in it was ever designed to have an 
application to the subject it was intended to iiius- 



for thi 




of the papists. The universal 



RICH MAN AND LAZARUS. 



5 



trate. By such assumptions discredit has been 
thrown on revelation, the truth of God been con- 
verted into food for the most fanatical, and men 
have turned to " cunningly devised fables." If 
any doubt whether parables are not sometimes 
purely fictitious, let them read the parable of the 
eagles' cropping the cedar, Ezk. 17: 1 — 10; the 
parable of the " ewe lamb ; ' ? 2 Saml. 12: 1 — 7; and 
the parable of the trees choosing a king, Judges, 
9: 7 — 15. It is said the rich man must be conscious, 
for he sees, feels and talks. We reply — It was 
common among the Hebrews to represent things 
without life as knowing^ feeling and conversing : 
see Gen. 4: 10; Hab. 2: 11; Isa. 14: 8; Psa. 93: 3; 
Prov. 8: 1—3; Prov 9: 1—5, &c. Our Lord, then, 
was in no danger of being understood, in this 
parable, as teaching the consciousness of dead 
men, and especially, as the Hebrew scriptures 
expressly taught, " the dead praise not the Lord' 1 — 
that "their thoughts perish in the very day ; ' they 
die — that, a the dead know T not anything"— and 
that, "there is no knowledge in sheol, n where dead 
men go : and further, inasmuch as Jesus uses the 
expression in Greek, to show the state of the rich 
man after death, that exactly corresponds with the 
Hebrew sheol, viz., hades, he could be understood 
in no other way than as using a fabulous discourse, 
like that to which we have previously referred in 
the Old Testament, to illustrate an unpalatable 
subject to his deriding hearers. We will now, 
before giving our present view of this parable, 
present explanations and admissions of eminent 
men, whose u orthodoxy 7 ' in regard to the conscious 
state of the dead is undoubted, yet their view ol 
this parable goes to show that they suppose it may 
have a d liferent interpretation from that usually 
given. The first author is Dr. Gill, who makes a 
two-fold application of it, and supposes it may 
apply to the torment of wicked Jews after death, 
or to calamities that were to come upon them in 
this world. He says: 89 



6 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



u The rich man died: £ It may also be understood 
of the political and ecclesiastical death of the 
Jewish people, which lay in the destruction of the 
city of Jerusalem, and of the temple, and in the 
abolition of the temple worship, and of the whole 
ceremonial law : a Loammi was written upon their 
church state, and the covenant between God and 
them was broken* the gospel was removed from 
them, which was as death, as the return of it, and 
their call by it, will be as life from the dead; as 
well as their place and nation, their civil power and 
authority were taken away from them by the 
Romans, and a death of afflictions, by captivity 
and calamities of every kind, have attended them 
ever since. 7 

u In hell — in torments : 1 This may regard the 
vengeance of God on the Jews, at the destruction 
of Jerusalem, when a fire was kind led against their 
land, and burned to the lowest hell, and consumed 
the earth with her increase, and set on fire the 
foundations of the mountains; and the whole land 
became brimstone, salt, and burning ; and they 
were rooted out of it ir» anger, wrath, and great 
indignation — see Deut. xxix. 23, 27, 28, xxxii. 22 — 
or rather the dreadful calamities which came upon 
them m the timesof Adrian, at Bither; when their 
false messiah, Bar Cochab, was taken and slain, 
and such multitudes of them were destroyed, in 
the most miserable manner, when that people, who 
before had their eyes darkened, and a spirit of 
slumber and stupidity fallen upon them, in those 
calamities began to be under some convictions.' ;? 
Expos, in loc. 

Theophylact. — This ancient writer first applies 
the parable to the concerns of the next life. He 
then says : 

u But this parable can also be explained in the 
way of allegory ; so that we may say, that by the 
rich man is signified the Jewish people ; for they 
were formerly rich, abounding in all divine know- 
90 



RICH MAN AND LAZARUS. 7 

ledge, wisdom, and instruction, which are more 
excellent than gold or precious stones. And they 
were arrayed in purple and fine linen, as they pos- 
sessed a kingdom and a priesthood, and were them- 
selves a royal priesthood to God. The purple de- 
noted their kingdom, and the fine linen their priest- 
hood ] for the Levites were clothed in sacerdotal 
vestments of fine linen, and they fed sumptuously, 
and lived splendidly, every day. Daily did they 
offer the morning and the evening sacrifice, which 
they also called the continual sacrifice. But 
Lazarus was the Gentile people, poor in divine 
grace and wisdom, and lying before the gates ) c or 
it was not permitted to the Gentiles to enter the 
house itself, because they were considered a pollu- 
tion. Thus, in the Acts of the Apostles, we read 
that it was alleged against Paul, that he had intro- 
duced Gentiles into the temple 3 and made that 
holy place common or unclean. Moreover, these 
people were full of fetid sores of sin, on which the 
impudent dogs, or devils, fed, who delight them- 
selves in our sores. The Gentiles likewise desired 
even the crumbs which fell from the tables of the 
rich ; for they were wholly destitute of that bread 
which strengthens the heart of man, and wanted 
even the smallest morsel of food ) so that the Ca- 
naanite woman, (Matt. xv. 27,} when she was a 
heathen, desired to be fed with the crumbs. In 
short, the Hebrew people were dead unto God, and 
their bones, which could not be moved to do goodj 
were perished. Lazarus also (I mean the Gentile 
people.) was dead in sin, and the envious Jews 5 
who were dead in sius, did actually burn in a flame 
if jealousy, as saith the Apostle, on account of the 
Gentiles being received into the faith, and because 
that those who had before been a poor and despised 
Gentile race, were now in the bosom of Abraham^ 
che father of nations, and justly, indeed, were they 
thus received. For it was while Abraham was 
fet a GenUle^ that he believed God 5 and turned 

91 



8 BIBLE EXAMINER. 

from the worship of idols to the knowledge of God 
Therefore, it was proper that they who were par- 
takers of this conversion and faith, should rest in 
his bosom, sharing the same final lot. the same 
habitation, and the same blessedness. And the 
Jewish people longed for one drop of the former 
legal sprinklings and purifications, to refresh their 
tongue, that they might confidently say to us. that 
the law was still efficacious and availing. But it 
was not: for the law was only until John. And the 
Psalmist says, sacrifice and oblations thou wouldst 
not, kc. r ' Annot. in loc. 

James Bate, M. A.. Rector of Deptford. says : — 
11 We will suppose, then, the rich man who fared so 
sumptuously, to be the Jew. so amply enriched with 
the heavenly treasure of divine revelation. The 
poor beggar who lay at his gate, in so miserable a 
flight, was the poor Gentile, now reduced to the 
last degree of want, in regard to religious know- 
ledge. The crumbs which fell from the rich man's 
table, and which the beggar was so desirous of pick- 
ing up. were such fragments of patriarchal and 
Jewish traditions, as their travelling philosophers 
were able to pick up with their utmost care and 
diligence. And those philosophers were also the 
dogs that licked the sores of heathenism, and endea- 
vored to supply the wants of divine revelation, by 
such schemes and hypotheses, concerning the na- 
ture of the gods, and ihe obligation of moral duties, 
as (due allowance for their ignorance and frailties) 
did no small honor to human nature, and yet there- 
by plainly showed, how little a way unassisted rea- 
son could go. without some supernatural help, as 
one of the wisest of them frankly confessed. About 
one and the same time, the beggar dies, and is car- 
led by the Angels (i. e., God's spiritual messengers 
to mankind.) into Abraham/ bosom; that is. tie is 
engrafted into the church of God. And the rich 
man also dies and is buried. He dies what we call 
a political death. His dispensation ceases. He is 
92 



RICH MAN AND LAZARUS. 



rejected from being any longer the peculiar son of 
God, The people whom he parabolically repre- 
sents, are miserably destroyed by the Romans, 
and the wretched remains of them, driven into 
exile over the face of the earth, were vagabonds, 
with a kind of mark set upon them, like Cain, their 
prototype, for a like crime; and which mark may 
perhaps be their adherence to the law. Whereby 
it came amazingly to pass, that these people, 
though dispersed, yet still dwell alone and separate, 
not being reckoned among the nations, as Balaam 
foretold. The rich man being reduced to this 
state of misery, complains bitterly of his hard 
fate, but is told by Abraham, that he slipped his 
opportunity, while Lazarus laid hold on his, and 
now receives the comfort of it. The Jew complains 
of the want of more evidence, to convince his 
countrymen, the five brethren, and would fain have 
Lazarus sent from the dead to convert them. But 
Abraham tells him, that if their own scriptures can- 
not convince them of their error, neither would they 
be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. And 
exactly so it proved in the event. For this para- 
ble was delivered towards the end of the third year 
of our Lord's ministry ; and in the fourth, or follow- 
ing year of it, the words put into the mouth of 
Abraham, as the conclusion of the parable, are 
most literally verified, by our Lord's raising another 
Lazarus from the dead. And we may presume, 
that the beggar had the fictitious name of Lazarus 
given him in the parable, not without some reason, 
since the supposed request of the rich man was 
fully answered, by our Lord's raising another, and 
3. real Lazarus, from the dead. But what was the 
consequence ? Did this notorious miracle convince 
the rich man's brethren? No, truly. His visit to 
them from the dead was so far from convincing 
them, that they actually consulted together, that they 
might put Lazarus also to death; because that, by rea- 
son of him, many of the Jews went away and believed 

93 



10 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



on Jesus. So much for the true sense of mis para- 
ble." 

After such testimony, we trust we shall not 
incur the censure of heresy if we state our con- 
viction of the true intent and scope of this parable 
The context shows that our Lord's design was to 
illustrate the effect upon two classes of men that 
would result from the change of dispensation from 
the law of Moses to the gospel of grace, now to be 
fully preached to all nations, which new dispensa- 
tion was " the mystery, which in other ages [or, dis 
pensations] was not made known unto the sons of 
men;*' but, being now about to be "revealed unto 
Holy apostles," would change the condition of both 
Jews and Gentiles • which change is aptly repre- 
sented by the figure, death, in the parable : as the 
state and condition of both parties would be en- 
tirely changed. Let the reader please turn to the 
chapter, and see how our Lord introduces this pa- 
rable. After having spoken of the law and the 
prophets being preached until John, and that since 
that time the kingdom of God was preached, he 
intimates that the law was about to have its last 
and perfect accomplishment — that the last "tittle" 
of it was about to be "finished: 7 ' that then the 
Jews would be like the wife whose husband was 
dead, the law not binding the parties any longer ; 
and God, who had dealt with them under the title 
of husband, would be at full liberty to select a new 
bride out of all nations. Thus Paul reasons, Rom. 
7: 1 — 4, "Know ye not, brethren, (fori speak to 
them that know the law,) how that the law hath 
dominion over a man as long as he livethl For 
the woman which hath an husband is bound by 
the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if 
the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law 
of her husband. So then, if while her husband 
liveth she be married to another man, she shall be 
called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead 
she is free from that law ) so that she is no adul 
94 



KICK MAN AND LAZARUS. 



II 



teress, though she be married to another man. 
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead 
to the law by the body of Christ ; that ye should 
be married to another, even to him who is raised 
from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit 
unto God.'- 1 Now read the verse with which the 
parable of the rich man is introduced, Luke 16 : 18: 
''Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth 
another, committeth adultery : and whosoever mar- 
rieth her that is put away from her husband, com- 
mitteth adultery." So long as the law given by 
Moses continued, the Jews were chargeable with 
adultery if they lacked in fidelity to that law as 
unto God their husband ) but nationally they had 
often been wanting in fidelity, and the law was no 
longer to be the marriage contract ) a new covenant, 
ratified by the blood of Christ, and not by the 
blood of bulls or goats, was to form the ground by 
which the new bride was to hold her 'relationship 
to God, and through which she was to receive the 
blessings promised. The law being dead "by the 
body," or death, "of Christ," still to cleave to that 
law, as the Jew did, was to commit adultery, and 
bring upon themselves all its curses : they died 
unto Christ, by rejecting him and putting him to 
death, and " were broken off" from Abraham's 
bosom, or from all spiritual connection with him 5 
and have been in " torments 1 } unto this day in con- 
sequence : while the believing soul, who received 
Christ, even though he had been a polluted Gen- 
tile, " full of sores, died" unto the law [see Rom. 
7: 4] and was grafted into the good "olive tree," 
or was translated through the instrumentality of 
angels [messengers, or ministers of Christ] "into 
Abraham's bosom," became a child of Abraham 
and an heir, according to the promise, to the king- 
dom of God. The Jews, as a nation, had their 
4; good things" in their "life time," or while they 
held the relation of bride to their Maker ) but now 
being dead, nationally in reference to that re- 

95 



1c 



BIBLE EXAMINER. 



lation they are tormented, grievously and soreiy 
tormented ; and all their appeals, as to their relation 
to Abraham, have proved unavailing ; and it has 
added not a little to their torment and sorrow to 
see the Gentiles enjoying rich blessings from which 
they find themselves shut out. We speak, o* 
course, particularly of social, civil, and political 
blessing, in which they possessed u much" advan- 
tage "every way,' ; in the days of their nationa 1 
prosperity. But an impassable gulf exists betweer 
them and the Gentiles now : but even that is nc 
where said to be eternal. It will indeed continue 
to the end of this age, or dispensation 5 or till the 
Redeemer returns to Zion. Till that time there 
will be no national repentance ; but, then will be 
fulfilled the prophecy of Zech. 12 : 10—14. 

The Jews, as a nation, hitherto have professed 
that their rejection of Jesus as the promised Mes- 
siah was want of evidence ; like the rich man, in 
the parable, they have constantly cried, from the 
days of Jesus, for more evidence. ' " Let him come 
down from the cross and we will believe." But 
when he u rose from the dead," as the rich man is 
represented as desiring one to do, to convince the 
unrepenting Jews, instead of repentance being pro- 
duced in them, as a nation, they put to death the 
witnesses of that glorious event. Who can con- 
template the untold sufferings of that nation from 
the time Jerusalem was compassed about with 
armies, and their city destroyed, to the presenv 
generation, and not discover the propriety of the 
parable our Lord employed to illustrate those tor 
ments and their hopeless state % Surely we hav© 
in this view a full explanation of the parable. 
96 



CAN YOU BELIEVE? NO £ 



BY REV, WM. GLEN MOXCRIEFF:— Scotland. 

1st. Can you believe, that every human being is cer- 
tainly immortal, be he regenerate or irregenerate — good 
or bad — when trie Bible never once says so, — nay, 
when it teaches, we must " by patient continuance in 
well doing, seek for glory, and honor, and immor- 
tality/ 5 Rom. 2:7. How can men be immortal, if 
they require to seek for immortality ? 

2d. Can you believe, that the human soul is a divine 
principle — a part of God's very essence inspired into 
man, when this implies that God can be divided into 
innumerable portions, and that in these portions of his 
essence, he has become defiled with every species of 
iniquity ? 

3d* Can you believe, that because you think yourself 
immortal — feel that you are so — long to be so, and 
judge yourself adapted for immortality, you ought to be 
assured that immortality is your destiny, when the 
Scripture contains no such doctrine, and when common 
sense teaches these grounds of faith are essentially 
feeble, and would be rejected in any other case, as for 
instance, you never would believe you will yet be rich, 
because you think you will be so. or feel that you 
will be so, or long to be so, or judge yourself fitted for 
being so ? 

4th. Can you believe, that when it is said God ex- 
pelled our first parents from Eden, lest, by eating of 
" the tree of life " after their sin, they minht live for 
ever," (Gen. 3: 22,) it does not mean that had they 
eaten they would thereby have lived for ever, since 
you suppose they were immortal by creation, and, 
therefore, certain of continuing everlastingly alive, 
whether they partook of it or not, either before or after 
their fall ? 

5th. Can you believe, that when Jesus Christ assured 
the Jews that unless they ate his flesh and drank his 
blood, the} 7 would not live for ever, (John 6 : 27, 33, 
47, 51, 53 and 57 J he could not mean they might in 
this way become immortal, since they, like all other 
men were, as is generally imagined, immortal, whether 
he had died for them or not. and whether they believed 
in his propitiatory death for their sins or not, though 
Scripture never asserts that men are, by creation, heirs 
of unending existence 1 

1 



2 



CAN YOU BELIEVE 1 



6th. Can you believe, that when the Apostle Paul 
declares it is the glory of Jesus Christ to have '''brought 
life and immortality (or incorruptible life to light by 
his gospel/' (2 Tim. 1 : 10,) he meant that Jesus taught 
that every man was immortal, when the Saviour never 
uttered such a statement ; and if the Saviour taught that 
men might live for ever, or become immortal by faith 
in his sanctifying gospel, which he did on innumerable 
occasions in his discourses, (John 3: 16 ; 6:51; 11: 26, 
&c.) how can you believe that all men are immortal irre- 
spective of faith in Christ, as they must be if they are 
naturally immortal ? 

7th. Can you believe, that when the Saviour said to 
his disciples, " because I live ye shall live also," (John 
14 : 19,) he did not declare that they and only they 
would inherit immortality and its associated honors 
and blessedness ? 

8th. Can you believe, that at the resurrection, the 
wicked, who are popularly held to be as immortal as 
the righteous, shall be raised with incorruptible and 
immortal bodies, — that they will have occasion to taka 
up the song, " 0 death, where is thy sting ! O grave, 
where is thy victory!" <Vc. (1 Cor. 15: 54,) when the 
Bible represents this inheritance and victory as exclu- 
sively belonging to the followers of the Lamb ? Luke 
20: 36; Phil. 3: 21; Rom. 2: 7. 

9th. Can you believe, that when the Bible, in innu- 
merable passages, declares that impenitent men shall 
suffer "perdition," " everlasting destruction,"' to issue 
forth from the presence of the Lord, — in a word, that 
they are miserably to die after the judgment day, and 
that when this doom is expressly declared to be their 
K punishment," (2 Thess. 1 ; 9,) it cannot be that they 
are to undergo what these words expressing their end 
naturally import, since "death," as you may hold, like 
many others, would be no punishment at all, there 
being no suffering in death, or when a man is dead — 
suffering being considered essential to the idea of penal 
infliction 1 Can you believe that the nations ot man- 
kind, in regarding death as the "capital'" or chief 
"punishment," have all along been acting as if they 
were moonstruck and demented, since, on the popular 
principle above stated, for a man to be executed — 
merely put to death — merely put beyond suffering, can 



CAN YOU BELIEVE 1 



3 



be no punishment ? Can you believe, that though the 
irrevocable death of impenitent men would exclude 
them perpetually from the vision of Christ and his 
glory — from the joys of heaven, and the fellowship of 
angels and saints — from all opportunity of searching 
into the wonders of the universe, and the unfathomable 
depths of the Divine Nature, which is love ; yet to lose 
all this is nothing, and it would be lost by death; and, 
therefore, to say they will literally die and become ex- 
tinct, as their punishment, is an idea to be abhorred 
and excluded from the mind ? 

10th. Can you believe, that life, and consciousness 
of existence, are no blessings in themselves, and that 
God is not to be praised for them, as every one consis- 
tently must, who holds that to have them taken for 
ever away would be no loss — no punishment ? 

Ilth. Can you believe, that though Jesus declares, 
God can and will destroy bad men, soul and body, in 
Gehenna, (Matt. 10 : 28,) yet the human soul cannot 
be destroyed, for it >s essentially immortal, though 
Scripture never says so ? Can you believe the same 
thing about all such declarations as this — " the -soul 
that sinneth it shall die.' 5 Ezek. 18; 4. May not God 
Almighty as easily destroy as create, and if he threatens, 
will he not keep his word ? 

12th. Can you believe, that though the mercy of God 
disposes him to save sinners, his justice requires him 
for the glory of his name, and the stability of his em- 
pire, to visit the finally condemned with most excru- 
ciating and ever increasing agonies through everlasting 
ages — to rain perpetually on them " snares, fire and 
brimstone," when he has never once threatened to do 
this, nay, when by threatening death, he has clearly 
intimated that a totally different end is awaiting the 
godless ? Can you believe that this representation of 
God exhibits him as he is, an infinitely amiable, attrac- 
tive, truthful, trustworthy, and righteous Sovereign. 

13th. Can you believe, that should any of your friends 
or neighbors endure the everlasting torments in conse- 
quence of your faithlessness, and that should you gain 
heaven yourself, God will so miraculously affect your 
mind that you will be able to reflect on their ceaseless 
torments, nay, should you be so required, to repair to 
the very mouth of the burning cauldron, age after age, 



4 



CAN YOU BELIEVE ? 



and behold their agonies, without experiencing for a 
moment the joys of heaven one degree lessened in your 
heart, even should the suffeier have been a wife, a sis- 
ter, a brother, a child, or a bosom friend ? Can you 
believe that such a perversion and denaturalization of 
your mental and moral constitution, would be the 
crowning of your salvation from sin, and all its conse- 
quences ? 

14th. Can you believe, that the most effectual way 
to awaken sinners is to deal largely in unscripturat 
threatenings of eternal fire and brimstone — to speak 
long and loud about the endless agonies awaiting im- 
penitent souls — and that he who can paint the scenes of 
horror in the pit, and employ all the figures and tones 
of fleshly terrorism, is the man most certain to be suc- 
cessful as a preacher and revivalist of true religion ? 
Can you believe that to cast away the popish and 
heathenish dogma of eternal torments would paralyze 
the pulpit, and open up the floodgates of crime, seeing 
its effects have been so signally beneficial in restrain- 
ing worldling*, hypocrites, profligates, and criminals of 
every name, a great majority of whom believe in it! 
Can you believe that noxious error will produce better 
effects than the genuine truth of inspiration, which says 
to every man, " if ye live after the flesh ye shall die." 
(Rom. 8: 13.) never, never to be called back to life 
again ? 

15th. Can you believe, that it is justifiable for minis- 
ters to be continually assuring their auditors that they 
have immortal souls, — deathless spirits — indestructible 
souls — never-dying souls — eternal souls — and souls that 
can live eternally, and die eternally at the same time, 
— language never once found in Scripture, and only 
calculated to inflate and bewilder unenlightened 
hearers ? 

P. S. The above questions are seriously and affec- 
tionately presented to your consideration by one who 
wishes you well, and who has to thank God for having 
delivered him from the trammels, horrors, and delu- 
sions of the reigning self-styled orthodoxy. 

f£> For sale at 193 Marshall Sreet, Phila. Pa 
Price 35 cts. per hundred copies. 



THE 



UNITY OF MAN; 



OR, 



LIFE AND DEATH REALITIES, 



A REPLY 



REV. LUTHER LEE, 



33s Snttiroposr, 



PHILADELPHIA; 
1850. 



UNITY OF MAN, 



The Rev. Luther Lee, Editor of "The True 
Wesleyan," published at New York, having come 
out with an elaborate defence of inherent immor- 
tality, the consciousness of the dead, and eternal 
torments, it was thought that his position in his de- 
nomination, his standing as a writer, and his repu- 
tation as a Logician, called for a reply. The 
public will judge whether I have fairly met his 
arguments. Astthropos. 

CHAPTER I. 

1. Mr. Lee proceeds to give us the properties of 
matter, and all he says about the essential properties 
of matter, is just as applicable to a stone as to anv 
part of the human body. He gives us the essential 
properties of inanimate matter, and finding no con- 
sciousness, no reason, no intelligence in this, he 
rushes to the illogical and unphilosophical conclu- 
sion that organized living matter cannot think ! 
This foundation — his starting point, is wrong, and 
his superstructure worthless. The question is, not 
whether a stone can think, but whether a living man , 
organized from the elements of nature, thinks by 
his brain. When Mr. Lee has proved that thought 
is not an essential property of matter, he has gained 
nothing. I can prove that sound is not an essential 
property of a musical instrument, but what will 
that prove? Will it prove that the harmony of 



6 



PHILOSOPHICAL AKGTJMENTS 



sounds is not dependant upon the organization of 
the wind (or other musical) instrument ! Take the 
wood of which an instrument is made, and there is 
no music in it. Let it be organized, and yet there 
is no music. What is the reason ? Why music is 
not an essential property of wood ; this is matter. 
and there is no music in matter : what is wanting 
now to produce the "concord of sweet sounds V 
We must have the atmosphere, for where ihere is 
no atmosphere sound cannot be produced. But 
the atmosphere is matter , and there is no music in 
matter ? Ah. says Mr. Lee. an intelligent mind is 
necessary to the production of sound. Yes; but there 
is no music in the mind. The mind has the power of 
producing what is not an essential property of itself. 
And it has the faculty of appreciating the harmony 
of sounds produced. Now for the application of 
this illustration : There is no sound, or harmony of 
sounds, in an instrument, none in the atmosphere, 
and none in the mind] but. by combining the three 
we have what was not in either separately. So, 
there may be no thought, no reason.no intelligence 
in inanimate matter: but when that matter is organ- 
ized, as we see it in man, who will affirm it cannot 
manifest thought ? But it may be objected that, in 
the case supposed, there is an intelligent mind 
operating upon the instrument and the atmosphere, 
producing the result. 

Let us take another, then* and we will suppose the 
case of a watch. There is no time in the materials 
of which a watch is made: and, yet. when organ- 
ized by an intelligent mind, it will indicate the hour, 
minute, and second. The maker winds it up, and 
it continues to perform its functions until it runs 
down. So with man : there may be no reason, or 
thought in the component parts of his constitution 
separately considered : but when organized, and 
put in motion by the spirit of life in the atmos- 
phere, breathed into his nostrils by his Maker, he 
awakes to consciousness, to thought and reason. 



OZS~ IMMORTALITY. 



Mr. Lee has not to be informed, I trust, that by 
combining, chemically combining, two substances, 
a third can be produced, possessing none of the 
properties of the two elements used. He has not 
to be informed. I hope, that man is chemically 
formed or organized : and that the ligkt of analogy 
makes it highly probable, to say the least of it. that 
matter, thus chemically combined, is capable of 
manifesting mental functions. 

2. Mr. Lee makes : - indestructibility.' 7 an essen- 
tial property of matter ; perhaps he means annihila- 
tion: for l: indestructibility" is certainly not a pro- 
perty of matter. 

One word as to ivhat Mr. Lee and other natural 
philosophers term the essential properties of matter. 
Tt must be evident to those who reflect, that phi- 
losophers have only given us the essential proper- 
ties of some forms of matter ; for Inertia is certainly 
not an essential property of all matter. We have 
no evidence that inertia is an essential property of 
lisht : on the contrary light seems to be self-moving 
and ever-acting. This is true of caloric . galvanism, 
electricity, and magnetism. May it not be true, in 
a much higher sense, of the aura that pervades the 
brain and nerves ? 

One word as to the use of terms. The word na- 
ture embraces all created things, animate and in- 
animate. Thus we have organized and unorgan- 
ized nature. The organized is a^rain divided into 
the vegetable and animal. Matter is nowhere in 
the scriptures, contrasted, or put in opposition to 
spirit. Spirit is not the antithesis of matter. Ani- 
mal stands opposed to . spirit. We use the term 
matter as expressive of that which is tangible, or 
of which the senses take cognizance. But matter 
exists in ten thousand forms, and is capable of al- 
most endless combinations and sublimations. The 
term spirit, when used in relation to the wind, to 
man ^ and to angels^ seems to express different 
modifications of matter. The word immaterial — 



PHILOSOPHICAL ARGr:.IE^T3 



not material, not matter does not appear to be appli- 
cable lo anything in the universe. But. for the sake 
of argument, let us suppose that there is an imma- 
terial thing in existence: how will you prove it? 
You cannot see it, for if you can see it, it is no lon- 
ger zm-material. You cannot smell it, nor hear it ; 
nor feel it ; it is not tangible to any of the senses; 
how. then, will you define it? The fact is, that 
which is immaterial has a name but no local habi- 
tation. 

Matter may be regarded as embracing all that 
God has created, but under this generic term we 
have various orders, classes and species of matter; 
thus we have matter in its simple, or elementary 
form, then in its compound form, without regard to 
chemical affinity: then we have it chemically con- 
stituted, without relation to life; then in its organ' 
ized form, in relation to vitality, as seen in the ve- 
getable kingdom, and in the lowest orders of ani- 
malcules; then in its more refined and exalted form 
as we see it in the human constitution ; and lastly, 
in its highest degree of refinement and sublimation, 
called spirit, of which the angelic nature is a speci- 
men. God is alike the creator of all forms of mat- 
ter; or, if Mr. Lee likes it better, he is the creator 
of matter and spirit ; and why should we affirm in- 
telligence of one and not of the other ? How does 
Mr. Lee know that volition is an essential property 
of spirit? The fact is, he assumes this, and then 
argues that gross matter, no matter how organized, 
eannot think. If God has created beings purely 
spiritual, they must have been created before they 
were endowed with consciousness, volition and 
thought; and therefore thought, &c. ? would not be 
an essential property of spirit. Mr. Lee does not 
know the essential properties of all matter, and 
therefore cannot affirm that thought is not an es- 
sential property of some forms of matter. God who 
formed matter can make of it what He wills to 
make; He can combine, refine and organize it in a 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



9 



thousand proportions and forms, with a view of its 
manifesting as many functions. From the same 
original elements of matter He can make a thou- 
sand different kinds of fruit — the orange, the apple, 
the pear, the cherry. &c, &c. Yet these are ail 
matter, but how different their qualities'? And as 
is the organization, so is the quality of the fruits 
whether of acidity or sweetness. « 

And so it is in the animal world. Out of matter 
God makes bones, muscles, ligaments, nerves of 
motion, nerves of sensation, arteries, veins, glands. 
&c. Here we have matter in various forms, and 
each form has its own peculiar function, which it 
possesses in virtue of its organization. The man, 
therefore, who affirms that matter in none of its 
forms can think, neither understands what he says, 
nor whereof he affirms. I shall return to this ques- 
tion in my next article. 

CHAPTER II. 

Mr. Lee says, — "If matter can think, thought 
must be an essential property of matter, or it must 
be the result of some peculiar modification of mat- 
ter; neither of which can be maintained If thought 
be an essential property of matter, every part and 
particle of matter must think. If thought be es- 
sential to matter, what does not think is not mat- 
ter." 

Mr. Lee's logical powers fail him here, for it does 
not follow'' if matter can think,'' that '-' thought 
must be an essential property of matter." The 
" essential property ,? of a thing is that " property" 
without which it cannot exist. Both matter and 
spirit can exist without thought, consequently 
thought is not an essential property of either. It 
is possible, however, for "thought to be the result 
of some peculiar modification of matter. " But 
what sort of reasoning is tins'? "If thought be 



10 



PHILOSOPHICAL ARGU3IEXT3 



essential to matter, what does not think is not 
matter \ V We might as well argue thus : 

Inertia is an essential property of matter. 

And that which does not possess this property is 
not matter. 

But light, electricity, &c, do not possess inertia. 

Therefore they are not matter. 

Thus according to the received principles of na- 
tural philosophy, we see that light. &c, is not mat- 
ter 5 it must, therefore, be spirit, and consequently 
intelligent; for Mr. Lee holds thought, kc, to be 
an essential property of spirit; and then^ccording 
to his own mode of reasoning, "if thought be an 
essential property of - spirit, u every part and par- 
ticle of' ; spirit "must think!" Thus his whole 
theory, when exhibited in the light of reason, van- 
ishes into thin air. 

Mr. Lee asks the question — w Is thought the re- 
sult of some modification (of ) matter V' y His whole 
reasoning on this question amounts to this — that 
matter cannot think, because it is matter ! This is the 
alpha and omega of his argument. Now, I ask Mr. 
Lee, what are the attributes of organized matter, in 
its various modifications'? He answers — (: Indes- 
tructibility, Divisibility, Impenetrability, Inertia/ 7 
&c. This is not the whole answer ; it does not 
meet the case. And the question recurs — what 
are the properties of matter ? Now, in order to 
meet this question fully, let us state a few princi- 
ples. And, 

1st. Spirit is defined to be that which has the 
power of self-motion, volition, consciousness, 
thought, reason,, and intelligence. And, 

2d. Matter is defined as above. (See indestruc- 
tibility. &c.) Now, we affirm that the true answer 
is not given in either case. Let us see. Here are 
four nerves : the function of one is to transmit 
sounds: the function of another is to transmit light; 
the function of another is to transmit odors, and 



OIN' IMMORTALITY 



II 



the function of another is to transmit the sensation 
of taste. These nerves are matter, yet they have 
different properties. One will transmit sounds, but 
will not and cannot transmit light. This proves 
that matter may be so organized as to possess dif- 
ferent functions. This is true not only of sound 
and sight, but of taste and smell. Here are two 
nerves ; the one a nerve of motion, and the other 
a nerve of sensation. They have different func- 
tions, but they are both matter. In all this there 
is no addition to matter, nor subtraction from mat- 
ter ; but matter, by being modified in its organiza- 
tion, developes new properties and functions. There 
is no infidelity or atheism in this philosophy, 
for we maintain that matter only possesses those 
properties with which God has endowed it. Mr. 
Lee's argument, on this point, is all lost. Man is 
not God, and therefore it is presumption to argue 
from the nature of one to the nature of the other. 
The nature of God is unorganized, while the nature 
of all other beings is organic. This fact proves 
them to be material. 

But let us come to the point more closely. It is 
admitted that man thinks, feels, and acts; but 
how does he do thisl Mr. Lee says, " By his ra- 
tional soul. ?; That is, by his spirit or mind. Now, 
what are the functions or faculties of man? Let 
us look at them : Here is amativeness. or the sex- 
ual feeling. Bat this, according to Mr. Lee's phi- 
losophy, is not an essential property of matter ; 
and therefore it belongs to the spirit or " rational 
soul.' 7 Here then we have mind, immateriality, 
immortality, desiring sexual intercourse. But. 
then, this function is not confined to man, but the 
whole animal world possesses the same. They, 
therefore, have the same " rational soul." Mr. 
Lee, perhaps, may say this is mere instinct. Very 
well, is instinct a property of matter % Here y r ou 
are stranded again ! Take another human faculty 
— love of offspring. Is this a function of matter. 



12 



PHILOSOPHICAL ARGU3IEXTS 



or spirit ? Of matter it cannot be, according t 
Mr. Lee's theory ; therefore it must be of spir . 
so we have the * immortal spirit" exercising the 
parental function] x\nd the beasts have the same 
faculty, therefore they have the same spirit ! 

Take another case. Man has the faculty of lr , 
combativeness. destructiveness,love of gain.&c.^c. 
Are these functions of matter or spirit ! Of matter 
they cannot be. according to Mr. Lee ? s theory ; 
therefore they must be properties of spirit ; and 
thus we have the " immaterial spirit' 7 in love with 
human flesh, quarrelling, disputing, destroying, 
seeking gain, kc. &c, 

But it may be said that the animal propensities 
are not attributes of the spirit ; then. pray, of what 
are they attributes ? Of matter? This would be 
fatal to your whole theory ! For love, anger, sexr 
ual feeling, and the love of gain are not among 
your H essential properties of matter. ' ? 

But if man possess an immortal mind, which is the 
seat of all the affections, moral and mental powers, 
of what use is the body ? of what use is matter ? 
of what use are the five senses? of what use is the 
brain.- Just none at all ! According to Mr. Lee ; s 
philosophy, a man is just as perfect without matter 
as with it; and, in fact, more perfect: — more per- 
fect in the ratio that spirit is superior to matter ! 
Of what use are impenetrability, divisibility, iner- 
tia, &c. in the economy of man ? Matter is of no 
account. Thpse are its only properties ! away with 
it, it is not fit to live ! yea, it does not, and cannot 
live! Man can live, and think, and reason; love, be 
amative, desire gain, hate and destroy without it ! 
Certainly God degraded Himself by making any- 
thing out of it ! Why did He create it ? Why 
don't He annihilate it ? Mr. Lee's hand and pen, 
which he uses in advocating error, are made of it. 
His mouth and organs of voice, which he uses in 
speaking, are made of it. What a pity ! His Bible 
is made of matter, the baptismal element is mat- 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



13 



ter, his paper is matter, his eyes are matter, 
his ears, his nose, his palate, his nerves, his 
lungs— they are all matter, merely possessing im- 
penetrability, inertia, &c. ! Of what account are 
" N ey? Surely it was a work of supererroiration to 
i ate them ! The steam he uses in printing is 
matter, the locomotive is propelled by matter, the 
magnetic wire is matter, the electric fluid is mat- 
ter ! All is matter ! 

But, if man be in possession of immortality, he 
inherits it. And Mr. Lee says — " matter can only 
act as it is acted upon." Now look at the laws oj 
generation. Here we have matter acting upon 
matter, producing what? Transmitting what 7 - 
• : Immateriality, ;; says Mr. Lee. That which is 
material can sfive birth, then, to that which is im- 
material ! Matter can produce that which is not 
matter. 'But/ will Mr. Lee say, 'the mind begets 
mind — spirit begets spirit I 7 Then it has " divisi- 
bility" which is a property of matter ? Man has 
the power of transmitting the elements of his own 
organization, and if immortality be a part of his 
organization, he can transmit this. This is self- 
multiplication — e * divisibility" — matter ! 

Again, life itself is transmitted, together with 
diseases of various kinds. And here we come to 
a very important consideration, viz : That which 
has 710 constitutional function cannot be diseased. If 
matter therefore, in none of its forms and modifica- 
tions, has any attributes or functions, it can never 
be diseased. And as the body of man is matter, 
it cannot be diseased ! We never hear of marble 
or stone being diseased. The diamond is not sub- 
ject to fever ; but vegetables and animals, including 
man, are liable to disease and death 

We come back to the conclusion then, that or- 
ganized matter is capable of manifesting a variety 
of functions, which are susceptible of derangement 
or disease. 

But, upon Mr. Lee's hypothesis, disease cannot 
2 



14 PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



exist, tor matter, having only the properties he as- 
cribes to it, is not susceptible of disease, and im- 
mortality cannot be diseased: and, therefore, we 
come to the happy conclusion, that there is no such 
thing as disease ! This is certainly the long-look- 
ed for philosophers' stone ! 

But the truth is, all parts of man are subject to 
derangement, disease, and death; and still all is 
matter; but if the mind be "immaterial" or immor- 
tal, it can not be deranged or diseased. And here 
we leave this argument for the present. 

In Mr. Lee ? s article No. 4, he introduces a long 
quotation from Mr. Watson, in which it is argued, 
that because " God is spirit" the mind of man is 
of the same nature. This argument is not only a 
lame one, but altogether out of place in this con- 
nection ; so we shall merely observe respecting it, 

1st. That the nature of God is not the subject of 
discussion. 

2d. That God only hath immortality. And, 
3d. That men are exhorted to seek for it, which 
would be absurd if they had it. 



CHAPTER III. 

Mr. Lee orgues that u the soul, the rational man. 
cannot betne body, nor any part of it, as is proved 
from the identity which the mind is conscious of 
maintaining from the dawn of existence to life's 
final close." 

" The soul, or rational man," then, according to 
Mr. Lee's philosophy, is u not the body, nor any 
mart of iiV Mr. Lee is not so good a philosopher 
as Paul. See 1 Cor. xii: 12—26. Here Paul 
teaches us that "the body is one v — it is a unit, but 
" hath many members." Again, he says, ( ' the 
body is not one member, but many." He teaches 
us that the " hand," the " foot," 'the "ear," the 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



15 



"eye, 77 are all members of the body; hence he 
says — "But now are they many members, yet but 
one body." The truth is, all the parts of man are 
members or attributes of his body ; and if you take 
away any one, you make a schism in it. But Mr. 
Lee says — " the soul is not the body, nor any part 
of the body. 77 Of course, then, according to Paul's 
reasoning, it — " the soul 77 — can say to the hand, 
I have no need of thee : 77 to the foot, the ear, the 
eye ; and, indeed, the whole body, I have no need 
of any of you ! for I am not of the body ! ! 

Mr. Lee speaks of " the soul ; ' as the " rational 
man: 77 then there is a man connected with the 
" soul,' 7 which is not " rational ! 77 Such is the con- 
fusion of this Babel of theology and philosophy. 

But if it be true that " the soul is not the body, 
nor any part of it,' 7 then no injury or disease of the 
body can disturb the functions or powers of the 
soul; for the reason that it " is no part of the body." 
Let us throw this into the syllogistic form, thus: 

1. That which " is no part of the body 57 cannot 
be injured or deranged by disease of the body. 

But the " soul is no part of the body. 77 
Ergo — It can never be injured or deranged by 
disease of the body. 

This is Mr. Lee T s position j but is it a true one ? 
We shall soon see. What does Mr. Lee mean by 
li the soul, the rational man V\ He doubtless means 
the mind. Is it true that no disease of the body 
can injure or derange the mind? This is not true^ 
as we shall see in the course of these articles. In 
view of all the facts in the case, we are compelled 
to come to the following conclusion : 

2. Whatever is " a part of the body 77 can be de- 
ranged or destroyed by disease of the body. 

But the "soul 77 — the mind — can be deranged. 
&c. by disease of the body. 

Ergo — The mind is a part of the body. 

I shall leave this part of the question just now, 



18 



PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



for the purpose of examining Mr. Lee's great 
argument on £< consciousness.' 7 

Let it be remembered then, that Mr. Lee pre- 
dicates u identity and self -consciousness 77 of the im- 
mortal soul or mind, and not of u the body, nor any 
part of the body/' Mr. Lee argues that as the 
body, in all its parts, is the subject of constant 
waste and decay, it cannot be the subject of iden- 
tity and consciousness. 

Here we have both sides of the question fully 
before us. 

1. The soul is immortal — our identity and con- 
sciousness are always the same — these, therefore, 
are attributes of the soul ; which is not subject to 
any change. 

Let us look at this a little. Mr. Lee says— " con- 
sciousness is that notice which the mind takes of 
its own operations and modes of existence.' 7 This 
may be true in a qualified sense, but it is not sus- 
ceptible of the use Mr. Lee wishes to make of it. 
Mr. Lee contends that the mind is immortal : if so, 
it cannot be deranged, diseased, destroyed. If 
Mr. Lee's position, therefore, be a true one, a man 
should never lose his identity nor consciousness. 
Is this a fact? Far from it ; for there are many 
cases on record of persons losing their identity, and 
becoming the subject of double consciousness. Why 
is this, if consciousness be an attribute of an "im» 
mortal soul." Mr. Lee says — " we cannot say 
consciousness is that notice which the brain takes 
of its own operations and modes of existence.' 7 
Bat, why can we not? Can Mr. Lee give a rea- 
son ? When the skull is fractured, and pressure is 
made upon the brain, all consciousness is suspended. 
Why is this, if consciousness be not connected with 
the brain ? If consciousness were an attribute of 
a mind immortal, this phenomenon would not. fol- 
low from such a cause. 

Mr. Lee says — ,; the brain is not the subject of 



OX IMMORTALITY. 



17 



this consciousness of identity." Suppose this were 
so, what would it prove? Would it prove that the 
brain is not the seat of consciousness? Is Mr. 
Lee. apart from the knowledge of the fact, con- 
scious of having any brain \ Does this prove that 
he has none ? Is he conscious of having a heart, 
whose office is to propel the blood ? Can he tell 
by his consciousness that his heart is the centre of 
the circulation % The brain may be the seat of 
personal identity, and give rise to consciousness 
without our being able, by reflecting on our modes 
of existence, to determine its location. But, the 
truth is, if we can determine anything by con- 
sciousness, we should certainly be induced to lo- 
calize it in the brain. And, so far as we are con- 
scious of our own identity and thoughts, we refer 
them to the brain ; and learn, by reflecting upon 
our own feelings and sensations, to refer them to 
the encephalon. Mr. Lee contends he has an im- 
mortal soul : is he conscious of such a possession ? 
Is he conscious of having an incorruptible mind, 
and does he know, by reflection, that this is the 
seat of his identity and consciousness? 

2. But Mr. Lee urges the continual change of 
the particles of the body, as an objection to con- 
sciousness being dependant upon organization. 

This argument is not new — I have met with it 
frequently before. A person at the age of seventy 
may have changed ten times ; and there are cor- 
responding changes in the mind. Every organ, of 
course, is subject to the same waste and renova- 
tion. This applies to all parts, external and inter- 
nal — the hardest and softest. It applies to the 
heart and blood vessels generally. And yet all 
the organs preserve their identity and sameness of 
organization, unless diseased. The process of ab- 
sorption and deposition is so gradual, so admirable, 
so complete, that the organization retains its iden- 
tity. In childhood this process is very rapid, but 
deposition exceeds absorption ; hence the increase in 
2* 



28 PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



bulk, in size, &c. This excess of deposition conti- 
nues till maturity; after which, the process of 
waste and renovation are about equal, till old age 
supervenes, when the waste exceeds that of reno- 
vation; and the man, unless previously cut off by 
disease, gradually wears out, and sinks into the 
grave. In this case, there is a second childhood; 
the mind again becomes imbecile and childish. 

In childhood, but few mental powers are mani- 
fested : but, as the individual approaches puberty, 
new powers come into play ; and, when manhood 
is attained, we see a corresponding change in the 
mind. The judgment is now mature, and the men- 
tal powers acute. But in old age all this is reversed 
— a second childhood obtains, and imbecility 
reigns ! And, as we have before observed, there 
is a correspond ing change in the organization. The 
brain is shrunk, and the mental fires decay. But 
now let us look on the other side of this interesting 
question. Suppose Mr. Lee T s argument to be cor- 
rect, then it follows, the mind being immortal] that 
every incident, every impression, every feeling, 
every thought, must be retained ; memory must 
be perfect ; nothing can be forgotten. If the mind 
be immortal, memory must be immortal. If the 
mind be deathless, the memory must be deathless. 
If the mind be incorruptible, the memory must be 
incorruptible. We defy Mr. Lee to evade this. 
But what are the facts in the case ? The memory 
is defective — it is neither immortal, deathless, nor 
incorruptible ! And yet it is an attribute of the 
mind. But if the mind — the soul — the spirit, be 
immortal, not an idea — not an impression — not an 
incident— not an event— not a word — not an act — 
not a feeling — not a sentiment — should be erased 
from its tablet ! Get over this who can : Mr. Lee 
cannot. When Mr. Lee explains how partial me- 
mory, partial or total insanity, partial or total idiocy 
can be reconciled with the idea of mental immor- 
tality, it will be time enough to bestow upon his 



OX IMMORTALITY, 



19 



difficulty, concerning identity, additional argu- 
ments. 

In conclusion, Mr. Lee says, speaking of the 
11 conscious-smitten sinner./' '-lam guilty; not my 
feet, not my hands, not my brains, not any part of 
my material body, but I, myself, am guilty: it is 
not my body, but myself; and this I, this self, de- 
notes the thinking moral man — the soul, which, of 
course, cannot be the body, nor any part of it. : ' 

Let us change this, and see how it reads — thus : 
"I am guilty; not my feet, not my hands, not my 
brains," nor my immortal soul, "but myself," &c. 
According to Mr. Lee^s philosophy, " the soul" 
alone, by which he means that which is immaterial, 
is guilty before God and man. How, then, will 
you punish the guilty one ? If the soul be imma- 
terial, it is intangible, and can never be brought to 
trial before any human tribunal. Why punish the 
body for the sins of the immortal soul? This is 
punishing the innocent for the guilty. According 
to Mr Lee, the body is no more guilty than the 
telegraph wires, along which a slander is transmit- 
ted ! Why hang a man if this be true? Why 
punish him in any way? His immortal soul is 
alone guilty — c: not his body, nor any part of his 
body 1" not even his ''brains!' 7 I would ask Mr. 
Lee if a man can be guilty without brains ? And, 
if not, why this puerile argument ? I affirm that 
man in the concrete, and not in the abstract, is 
guilty. Not his feet, hands, brain, nor u soul," but 
the man as such; and in this light he is held re- 
sponsible by all law, human and divine. 



CHAPTER IV. 

Mr. Lee's last philosophical argument is that, 
" nothing but spiritual good can satisfy the human 
mind — the phenomena developed in the progress of the 
body and mind, prove them not to be identical/ 7 



20 



PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



Let us analyze the proposition. And, 

1st. " Nothing but spiritual good can satisfy the 
human mind." How does this harmonize with 
Mr. Lee's previous declarations ? — with mental 
philosophy ? — and with the facts in the case ? 

It does not harmonize with Mr. Lee's previous 
remarks upon the " essential properties of matter." 
He has given us what he conceives to be these 
"essential properties/*' and, of course, all other 
properties in his estimation, belong to spirit. How 
then can he say, consistently, that u nothing but 
spiritual good can satisfy the human mind I" 
Amativeness is either a property of matter, or 
spirit. According to Mr. Lee's theory, it cannot 
be a property of matter ; and must, therefore, be a 
property of spirit! Does it desire " spiritual good?" 
And we might make the same enquiry about a 
variety of the elements of the " human mind." 

Neither does it harmonize with mental philoso- 
phy. The mind is made up of a number of ele- 
ments, some of which relate to things physical, 
others to things of a moral character, and others to 
intellectual objects. Facts are opposed to his pro- 
position, for the " human mind." as is demonstrated 
by observation, has a multiplicity of desires which 
do not relate to "spiritual good." 

2d. Who asserts that "the body and mind are 
identical ?" No man in his senses ! Vision is an 
element of the " human mind," but vision and the 
body are not "identical." The brain, medulla ob- 
longata, medulla spinalis, and the nerves departing 
from these centres, belong to the body — they are 
organs of the body ; and motion, sensation, feeling, 
sentiment, and intellect are functions of these 
organs, and attributes of the body. The cerebrum 
is a part of the man — the organ of thought. &c, 
thought is an attribute of the man, and an element 
of mind. Matter is thus endowed with affective, 
moral, and intellectual functions. 

•■'•'The spirituality of the human soul," says Mr. 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



21 



Lee, " may be inferred from the nature of its de- 
sires," &c. This only carries us back to a former 
point, so we will leave it and proceed. Mr. Lee 
says, "All men desire happiness," and that " the 
greater portion seek it where it is not to be found." 

Indeed ! One would suppose, if the mind were 
immortal, that its desires would all be pure, pro- 
perly directed, and only centered on that which is 
good ; and that men would " seek happiness "only 
where it could be found. 

But Mr. Lee explains by saying, " the reason is, 
they seek it in the gratification of their animal pro- 
pensities.''' Are there u animal propensities," " pro- 
perties,"" or attributes of matter ? If not, what ar- 
gument is there in all this ? 

The fact is, all Mr. Lee says under this head is 
in perfect harmony with our view of the subject; 
but altogether incompatible with the immortality of 
the mind. 

Man finds his happiness in all the physical, mo- 
ral, and intellectual objects to which he has ele- 
ments of mind adapted. These elements of mind 
inhere in organized material organs. And there- 
fore, although "man" be "only matter," "com- 
pounded of the elements of the material world," 
the "centres of attraction " are just as numerous 
as the elements of his mind. And therefore, u that 
matter (man organized of matter) should seek " the 
gratification of all its powers, whether this be in 
" fountains of spiritual bliss," or in objects of sense, 
is neither "absurd "nor ^ un philosophical but, 
on the contrary, in perfect accordance with " its 
own essential Saws," and the " essential properties 
of its own nature." 

Mr. Lee &ays, "'The fact that the world of mat- 
ter never did, and never can satisfy the desires of 
the human soul, is one of the clearest proofs that 
the soul is not itself matter." Now, in my esti- 
mation, this "proof" amounts to no "proof" at 
all. Let us see : " The fact that the world of mat- 



22 



PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS. 



ter " ever has, and ever will (in man's present state) 
K satisfy the desires " of a majority of " human 
souls, is one of the clearest proofs that the soul is 
itself matter." Now, what has Mr. Lee gained by 
his so-called "proof? 75 Just nothing at all ! So it 
is not true that "the world in any and all its forms, 
cannot satisfy the desires of one human soul." For 
the majority of mankind are satisfied with " the 
world in any and all its forms of pleasure, without 
regard to the "'spirit world." "'Give it," (the 
soul) says Mr. L., " all the elements of earth, sea, 
and air, moulded into every possible form, and it 
would grasp the whole, and thirst and famish still, 
and pant for higher bliss," &c. This is contrary 
to facts, for multitudes of men, "who have their 
portions in this life," neither desire nor seek for 
"higher bliss." And, if they " grasp the whole, 
and thirst and famish still," it is for more of the 
same nature. Tell me that such a soul is "immor- 
tal?" "The reason is," to use the language ot 
Mr. Lee, "the soul is matter" — not "spirit." 
"Were it" spirit, all its desires would be in har- 
mony with its nature. 

Mr. Lee says, "It" (spirit) "originally came 
from God, and hence can be happy in God alone, 
as God dwells in us, and we in God." Let us try 
this statement : matter " originally came from God, 
and hence can be happy in God alone, as God 
dwells in us, and we in God." This is just as 
good an argument as Mr. Lee's, and both may 
pass for what they are worth : but so far as the 
" origin " of them is concerned, the reader can see 
that if one be good evidence, so is the other. 

Mr. Lee asks, " But does God dwell in matter, 
and matter in God ?" We reply, that God li fill* 
heaven and earth;" and as the heavens and the 
earth are matter, "'God dwells in matter." He 
fills the vast universe. It has not inaptly been 
said that "his centre i& everywhere, and his cir 
cumference is nowhere." And so far as it re 



OX IMMORTALITY. 



23 



spects " matter dwelling in God/' I will say that 
man is matter; and u in God he lives and breathes., 
and has his being/' "Matter," then, in the form 
and capacity of man, " can have fellowship with 
the Father and the Son ;" u can have communion 
with the eternal spirit;' 7 can drink joys from the 
fountain" of all joy. Mr. Lee bases another argu- 
ment on " the desire of knowledge in connection 
with the capacity of the mind to improve." 

This argument will only hold good in relation to 
a part of mankind,, for there are many who have 
neither the " desire " nor the " capacity " to im- 
prove. It is, therefore, of no avail, for either im- 
mortality is hereditary, or it is not ; if it is, oilmen 
have it • but, if it is not, none have it. 

But Mr. Lee admits that "the soul commences 
its career without knowledge." Now, only think 
of an ''-'immortal mind" — self-conscious, self-intel- 
ligent, possessing all the attributes of intelligence, 
knowledge, and wisdom, "'commencing its career 
without knowledge!"' The very idea is absurd ! 
But Mr. Lee says, " its capacity furnishes the basis 
of the argument." This merely brings us back to 
those who have no "'capacity to learn," and thus 
the argument fails. 

Mr. Lee has foiled himself — he has precipitated 
himself overboard, and carried all his arguments 
with him ! Hear him: " The mind, in its present 
state, is dependant upon the bodily organs for prima- 
ry ideas! /" This admission is fatal to his whole 
theory ! What is the meaning of it % Why, it 
means this — that the "immortal mind" is depend- 
ant upon MATTER " for primary ideas I" Mind 
dependant upon matter for ideas! "Ideas" do 
not "inhere in mind," then, as Mr. Lee first 
taught us. They must "inhere "in matter, for 
mind is " dependant upon the bodily organs for 
primary ideas." Yes, and I will add, for all "ideas," 
"primary" and secondary. Bnt Mr. Lee limits 
this to "'the present state." Very well, that will 



24 



PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



answer our purpose; but how does he know but 
the same arrangement maj* obtain in the nex»* 
u state V But what and where are " the bo lily or- 
gans, upon which "the soul is dependant for pri- 
mary ideas V 7 Mr. Lee mentions two — the eye 
and the ear • but these are not all. The brain is 
full of them. The "soul is dependant 5 ' on the 
brain " for primary ideas." Now, friend Lee, let 
us shake hands and be good friends, for we have 
met at the same focal point. 

I hope that we shall hear nothing more about 
materialism from that quarter • but, that hence- 
forth, life, mind, intelligence, all the mental 
phenomena, will be predicated upon organization ; 
and that eternal life, immortality, and incorrupti- 
bility will be proclaimed through Jesus, who is 
-'•the resurrection and the life." 



CHAPTER V. 

Mr. Lee says — " Its (the spirit's) improvement, 
is a distinct matter from the improvement of the 
body." 

What does he mean by the "improvement of the 
body?" Does he mean the growth of the " body V } 
What does he mean by the " body V 1 Does he 
mean the whole physical organization, or a part ot 
it ? If he uses the term as indicative of the whole 
organism, then it is equivalent to the man ; which 
would be to make " the improvement of the spirit 
a distinct matter from the improvement of the man." 
Understanding Mr. Lee. therefore, to mean the phy- 
sical constitution, the question recurs — does he 
mean by " the improvement of the body" its growth 
in bulk or size? If so, I would remark, that stub- 
born facts establish the law, that other conditions 
being equal, the development of mind is in the 
ratio of the development of the physical organiza- 
tion. What are these " other conditions ?" The 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



25 



answer to this question is found in the fact, that 
there are several systems of organs, giving rise to 
different functions, and modifying the manifesta- 
tions of mind. The ample development of the 
glandular system does not increase the mental power, 
but modifies it. The excessive development of the 
muscular system does not import mental activity ; 
but it gives durability to body and mind. The san- 
guineous and nervous systems impart physical and 
mental activity. 

Again, a person may be born with an organiza- 
tion unfavorable to the development of much mind 
— they maybe idiotic ; but, in this case, the nervous 
system will be defective. Again, they, may be 
diseased, and, from this cause, imbecile. Again, 
education may have been partial and defective ; 
the muscular system may have been cultivated at 
the expense of the nervous; and then, iC the body 
may grow and flourish in all the perfection of 
health, and the mind make little or no progress." 
Again, the nervous system may be d eveloped at the 
expense of the sanguineous, and u the body,'' or 
man, c * be of exceedingly frail structure, pale and 
wan but it is not true that "a giant mind may 
develop itself from within." The mind of such a 
person may possess great vivacity, sprightliness and 
brilliancy, but it will be wanting in strength, depth, 
power and durability. But, in all this, the law holds 
good, that, as is the organization, so is the mind. 

Mr. Lee says — 11 Some of the greatest geniuses 
the world has ever produced, have had but just 
body enough to hold the soul. 57 This is a mere 
fancy sketch, containing no argument. A man, 
however, may be a u genius," with little or no 
talent. Again, Mr. L. says — " These facts certainly 
indicate that the soul and the body, are not one 
and the same thing Truly! who ever contended 
trial they were " one and the same thing!" The 
one may be an attribute of the other, and both may 
3 



26 PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



be mortal— both matter — Mr. Lee's "facts'"' to the 
contrary notwithstanding ! 

2. Mr. Lee tells us, that "'the body comes to 
maturity and begins to decline, at an age when 
the mind has but just commenced its career of 
improvement. ;? This is a fallacy, for the t; career 
of improvement'' begins almost with our birth. 
:l A sound mind in a sound body'' is a sentiment, 
which embodies the truth upon this subject. The 
nervous system may be healthy, unimpaired and 
elastic, when the muscular and glandular have 
declined : and the mind may thus be proportionably 
active, when the physical strength is partially rrone. 
But when there is a general decay of the whole 
organization, the mind goes down with the body. 
And whether a man shall be a dotard at a fifty, 
sixty, or seventy," depends upon the strength, 
soundness and durability of the whole constitution. 

3. Mr. Lee alludes to the doctrines of phrenology, 
and informs us that nothing is gained by admitting 
their 'ruth — that phrenologists "will not make this 
the issue, and base their science on the doctrine of 
materialism, to stand or fall with it." If by tl ma- 
terialism n Mr. Lee means matter, 1 affirm that phre- 
nologists do base their science on '-materialism;" 
for they base it on the anatomy and physiology of 
the brain-— which is matter; while, at the same 
time, they may not follow up their principles to their 
legitimate results. I shall not reflect upon the 
motives of those phrenologists, who have labored to 
popularize, and harmonize phrenology with secta- 
rian theology. But , for one, fearless of all conse- 
quences, I DO MAKE THE IS-UE, AND BASE THE PHRE- 
nological doctrines upon til e materia l organi- 
zation of man, independent of all ^immateri- 
ality," immortality, or incorruptibility: and 
i challenge all phrenologists, no matter who, 
nor wheiie they are, whethfr in europe or 
America, to disprove the correctness of this 
position. 



OX IMMORTALITY. 



27 



This is the only view that will, or can harmonize 
with the volume of Revelation ; and every effort to 
harmonize the sublime science of mind, with the 
paganized traditions of modern sectarianism, de- 
grades both it and them ! 

Yes, sir, a voice speaks from the highest heavens, 
and proclaims to all the sons of men, that they are 
mortal, having not one spark of immortality, but 
corruptible and perishing ; and mental science — 
the science of man — sends back the sound, all u 
mortal I 

4. We shall now examine Mr. Lee ? s concluding 
philosophical argument, which is this : " The mind 
often developes rself in greater power and glory, 
just at the moment of death, 'shining out from an 
emaciated body, already wan and cold.' 5 

Here Mr. Lee rallies all his powers, concentrates 
all his forces, and pours along his logical troop ! 
We shall pay particular attention to this argument, 
not on account of its strength, but on account of its 
commonness. 

" The mind often develops itself in its greatest 
power and glory, just at the moment of death." 
This, as a proposition, is monstrous ; as an argu- 
ment, absurd ; and as a fact, is not true. '-The 
mind develope its greatest power and glory, at 
the moment of death V Did ever the mind of a 
man, "at the moment of death/"' develop the pow- 
ers of a Solomon ? — a Bacon ? — a Locke 1 — a Her- 
schell ? — a Franklin } Here are specimens of mind 
in its "greatest power." Did ever the mind of man, 
" at the moment of death," when the " emaciated 
body" was "already wan and cold," develope the 
c; glory' 1 — the eloquence of a Cicero, or a -Demos- 
thenes? The answer is, and must be, in the nega- 
tive. But Mr. Lee says — "It is true that in some 
cases the mind appears to decay with the decaying 
body, but to prove that it is the body or any part 
of it, this would have to be always so without ex- 
ception, which is not the case." Mr. Lee has the 



28 



PHILOSOPHICAL AIMJUJEENTS 



argument here by the blade, instead of the handle 
and cuts himself rather than his opponent ! Tile 
mind should never - appear to decay with the de- 
caying body. 77 if it be immortal! If it be neither 
" the body nor any part of it,-' 7 there should be no 
exception 77 to the -power 77 and glory'' of its 
development " at the moment of death. 77 ik which." 
as Mr. Lee says — "is not the case. 77 And now I 
will explain to Mr. Lee why it is. that some minds 
are more brilliant in death than others. 

1. It dependsupon the nature of the disease, and 
its seat. There are some diseases which preternatu- 
rally excite the brain, and consequently, the men- 
tal powers. We witness this in various forms of 
fever. And sometimes this febrile condition be- 
comes so exalted and intense, that the patie- if 
becomes eloquent, musical, furious and insensible 
by turns, according to the nature of the case. In 
this condition the patient's animal, moral, or intel- 
lectual faculties may be principally excited, and 
develope their functions accordingly. They may 
shout. p r ay. sins:, or curse, swear and rage, just as 
their different faculties are the seat of the most 
intense cerebral action. Some, in this condition 
may u die shouting glory ! glory ! ! glory ! ! ! 77 and 
others die perfectly frantic and furious. 

Again, in disease of the heart and lunsrs. the in- 
tegrity of the mind is partially maintained till dea:r. 
closes the scene : but this is because the brain is 
not immediately involved in the disease, and 
therefore it manifests its functions, though with 
less power, to the last. 

2. Another cause, already hinted at, is, the fact 
that death sometimps commences at the heart, and 
at the lungs. The first is called death by anoemia 
— the want of a due supply of blood to the heart. 
In this ca-e the faculties may be retained to the 
last for the reason already given. 

The same remarks apply to dc r ith by apnct r . 
privation of breath. The person, being cut off sud- 



OX IMMORTALITY. 



29 



denly, retains his senses to the end; or, if not dying 
suddenly, he gradually wastes away by consump- 
tion of the pulmonary organs, and dies in possession 
of a degree of mental power. 

Death by coma may either be sudden, or more 01 
less protracted according to circumstances. 

These are some of the reasons why some persons 
die in the possession of some mental power, and 
others perfectly insensible. These. phenomena are 
perfectly plain upon the view we take of the con- 
stitution of man j but can Mr. Lee, or any one else, 
explain them upon his hypothesis? 11 The mind 
may kindle up at the moment of death, and blaze 
out with intellectual fire,'' but it is the mere flick- 
ering — the mere flashing up, of the waning intellect, 
which, like the dimly burning taper, gives signs of 
its extinguishment ! " The body'" may be %/; wan, 
cold and helpless/' 7 and the mind will shine as 
dimly, and burn as faintly as the expiring lamp ! 
An occasional out-burst — an occasional flash, is not 
the strength, power and glory of a giant mind ) but 
the sure indications of a speedy dissolution. 

Mr. Lee speaks of '-the mind, being roused by 
tbe prospect of heaven, or seized with the terror 
of impending perdition, ;; as " flashing with the 
fires of immortality,'' and 11 shedding a living glare 
as it quits its house of clay and enters upon the 
destinies of the spirit world !' ? 

The whole of this is a beautiful delusion! a 
sublime absurdity ! ! There is no truth — no argu- 
ment — no logic in it. This going to ' c keaven :: at 
death, or down to -perdition,-' 5 are old wives' fables. 
They are pagan traditions, newly vamped by the 
Mother of Harlots and abominations of the earth. 

No, gentle reader, man is mortal, death is the 
extinction of life and sense and mind ; and nothing 
but the resurrection can restore these attributes to 
man. So we come back to our starting point — no 
organization, no life : no life, no mind. 

And here we leave Mr. Lee, to the mercy of his 
own ill-fated philosophical arguments. 



30 PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



CHAPTER VI. 

Having examined Mr. Lee's philosophical argu- 
ment. I now proceed lo his scriptural. 

1. His first argument is based upon Gen. 35 : 18, 
" And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, 
(for she died,) that she called his name Ben-oni." 

The reader will please bear in mind that the 
subject befoie Mr. Lee's mind is the ''immateri- 
ality of the soul," and that this text has been ad- 
duced to prove it ! But if he can see any connec- 
tion between it and the subject, he can see far 
better than I can. Her '-soul departed/"' ergo, it is 
immortal! Truly, this is an " age of reason.''' Mr. 
Lee says, " Her body did not depart. Her brains 
did not depart!' 7 And was there nothing else 
which could "depart/*' and which, in scripture lan- 
guage, is termed the " soul V 7 Cculd not her breath 
— her life depart, and M her body'-' and " brains' 7 
remain ? This text proves only one thing, and that 
is the departure of the woman's soul, life, or breath; 
and has no bearing whatever upon Mr. Lee's ques- 
tion. 

But Mr. Lee thinks his doctrine of l: immateri- 
ality," is taken for granted in the Bible ! This is 
begging the question. The Bible, so far as I know, 
takes nothing for granted: and, even if it did. this 
would not do away with the necessity of Mr. Lee's 
proving his position, by proving that the Bible takes 
it for granted Let him not assume this but prove it. 

2. His second proof is Numbers 16 : 22, where 
God is spoken of as the " God of the spirits of all 
flesh." What has this to do with Mr. Lee's lj im- 
material soul V' I admit that God is " the God of 
the spirits of all flesh/"' because "in Him we live, 
move, and have our being ;" but this does not prove 
that "the spirits of all flesh"' are the " immaterial 
souls" of all flesh. Inasmuch as "the spirit of 
life," or "'breath of life," which inflates the lungs, 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



31 



oxygenizes the blood, and gives life to the flesh, 
is from God ; He is emphatically the " God of the 
lives of all flesh." And. I apprehend, this is the 
meaning of the passage. In Numbers 27 : 15, 16, 
there is a passage of similar import. 

3. Mr. Lee's third argument is Job 14: 22. "But 
his flesh upon him shall have pain, and his soul 
within him shall mourn." Were I disposed to be 
hypercritical. I might analyze this thus : First, we 
have the " flesh 3" second, the "Mm;" and third, 
the "soul." The "flesh" is not the " him," be- 
cause it is upon *'-him:" and the soul is not the 
" him," because it is in "' him." It follows, there- 
fore, according to this mode of reasoning, that nei- 
ther the "flesh" nor the " soul" constitutes the 
"him," or man. How will this tally with Mr. 
Lee's theory ? This shows the folly of all such 
reasoning. The simple meaning of the text is 
this: The "'flesh upon"* his person "shall have 
pain, and his heart within him shall mourn." 

4. His fourth proof is Job 31 : 30, " Neither have 
I suffered my mouth to sin, by wishing a curse to 
his soul." Here, again, I may ask the question. 
What has this to do with the "immortality of the 
soul V The term soul is often used as a Hebraism 
for the person, and as often used for life ; so that 
the test and context must determine its significa- 
tion in any given case. In the text before us, it 
evidently means life, or the person of whom life 
was an attribute. 

5. His fifth argument is chapter 32:8, "But 
there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the 
Almighty giveth them understanding." This is 
the most plausible scriptural argument yet offered 
by Mr. Lee, but this does not prove his point. Mr. 
Lee himself admits that this " appears to be an 
allusion to God's breathing into man the breath of 
life, after he had formed him of the dust of the 
ground, by which he ' became a living soul.' " In 
addition to this admission on the part of Mr. Lee 



B2 



PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



it is remarkable that the spirit is represented as 
being without knowledge until the u inspiration of 
the Almighty gives them understanding/' Mr. 
Lee makes another important admission, which I 
hope the reader will remember. It is this : " Man 
here denotes the visible, tangible frame, the body ; 
in this there is a spirit. " Very well ; ' ; man,' 7 then, 
is the "body," animated by "a spirit" — " the breath 
of life," and God gives them w understanding.' 7 
Thus Mr. Lee has helped us to the refutation of 
his argument. 

6. Sir. Lee's sixth proof is Proverbs 19 : 2. '-'that 
the soul be without knowledge is not good." He 
thinks "this text clearly implies the existence of 
an intelligent soul, distinct from the body." Bat 
how can an M immortal soul," which is self-con- 
scious—self-intelligent, " be without knowledge V J 
Here Mr. Lee is caught in his own snare ! I re- 
gard this text, therefore, notwithstanding what Mr, 
Lee says about the definite article, as being simi- 
lar, in this respect, to the passage, u the soul that 
sins, it shall die;" and as referring to man, in re- 
lation to that attribute of his nature which is the 
seat, or serisorium of the mind. 

7, His seventh argument is based on Eccles. 12: 
7, "Then shall the dust return unto the earth as it 
was : and the spirit shall return unto God who 
gave it." This clearly refers to God's u creating 
man of the dust, and breathing into his nostrils the 
breath of life;" and has no more. to do with the 
" immateriality of the soul," than the blood of man. 
When man dies, that which came from the earth, 
returns to the earth; and that ' : breath of life" 
which God L - breathed into his nostrils " returns to 
him in the expanse of Heaven. • In point of fact } 
however, the body is not less from God than the 
spirit, or " breath of life." Both are from Him, 
And this same author, Solomon, as well as Moses, 
speaks of the beasts as possessing the same " spirit 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



33 



of life'.* 3 They all have one breath: all are of 
the dust, and all turn to dust again." 

8. Mr. Lee's eighth proof is Ezek. 13 : 4, i; Be 
hold, all souls are mine: as the soul of the father, 
so also the soul of the son is mine." Why did not 
Mr. Lee quote the whole verse ? Why did he omit 
the last clause ? Was it because the whole verse 
would not answer his purpose? " The soul that 
sinneth) it shall die.'' was too strong for Mr. Lee ! 
He reminds me of a person, who is running along 
a beautiiul lawn, where everything is pleasant to 
the eye, and grateful to the senses: but suddenly 
an awful precipice presents itself; and the man 
starts back with horror at the impending danger ! 
So Mr. Lee. conscious of the truth of his position, 
passes rapidly from text 1o text, hoping to fortify 
his favorite doctrine of 1,1 immateriality; " ? when sud- 
denly and unexpectedly he treads upon the very 
brink of a logical abyss, where all his arguments 
are in danger of being precipitated to the gulf be- 
low. He pauses, starts back, and retreats ! 1 with 
the words sounding in his ears, and vibrating along 
the fibres of his brain. — " the soul that sixxeth, 
it shall die !" This text, so far from helping 
Mr. Lee, is fatal to his whole theory ; for it affirms 
that the sinful soul shall die. which is incompatible 
with his view of the subject. 

9. His next argument is founded on Zech. 12 : 1, 
where God speaks of forming a the spirit of man 
within him.'' There is no difficulty here, accord- 
ing to our view, whether we understand the term 
"spirit'' to apply to the life or the mind. Both 
life and mind are u formed/' developed, or mani- 

ested "within* 9 the man. But Mr. Lee takes a 
iiberty which the rules of logic do not allow him, 
He proves that man has a soul or spirit, but its na- 
ture he takes for granted. He is not required to 
prove that man has a " spirit,'' but to prove that 
spirit ••' immortal/' This he has failed to do : for to 
do this it is not enough to prove that the spirit is a 



34 



PHILOSOPHICAL 



ARGUMENTS 



distinct entity from the body; but he must also 
show that it is necessarily immortal. This he can 
never do. 

10. His tenth argument is based on Rom. 8: 16 ? 
where Paul speaks of the witness of the Holy Spi- 
rit " with our spirit. ' n On this I remark that neither 
God nor man "bears witness," except by words or 
signs addressed to the minds of men. " The spirit 
bears witness with our spirits," minds, or hearts, if 
you please, that we are the children of God : but 
this u witness" is in his word, and addressed to 
our understandings : and not to our feelings or pas- 
sions. The christian has better evidence of his 
being a " child of God," than a mere impulse, or 
feeling, which is the sport of a thousand circum- 
stances. When his heart, his life, his words, &c. 
are all in harmony with the Gospel 3 then it is that 
" the spirit," by that word, "'bears witness " with 
his mind, his conscience, that he is born of God. 

11. His next proof is 1 Cor. 2: 11, " For what 
man knoweth the things of a man. save the spirit 
of a man which is in him V 7 This belongs to a 
class of texts already examined, and means no 
more, I apprehend, than that a man is alone con- 
scious of the operations of his own mind. 

12. Mr. Lee refers to chap. 6: 20 as a proof — 
" For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify 
God in your body, and your spirit, which are God's. n 
This proves that men can glorify God " in the 
body/' although "matter/"' which, I suppose, is 
more than Mr. Lee would willingly admit. The 
text clearly teaches us the whole man, " soul, body 
and spirit," should be devoted to His cause. That 
all the physical, moral and mental powers should 
be consecrated to his service. I see nothing in 
this to favor the popular theory. 

13. He then refers us to 2 Cor. 4: 16, where 
Paul speaks of an ••'outward*' and "inward man." 
I am willing that Peter shall explain Paul. See 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



35 



1 Peter 3: 3 5 where he defines the "inward" or 
" hidden man " to be "the heart.'' 

14. His fourteenth proof is 2 Cor. 7 : 1. "Let us 
cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh 
and spirit. ;; Apart from the absurd idea that 
"filthiness" is here ascribed to an " immaterial 
spirit." it must be evident to those who think for 
themselves, that the apostle meant no more than 
that they should put away all evil — all immoral 
contaminations, and be holy in life, temper and 
disposition. 

15. Mr. Lee's final argument in the article T am 
reviewing, is James 2 : 26, "For as the body with- 
out the spirit is dead, so faith without works is 
dead also." In this passage, it is perfectly evident 
the term " spirit " signifies M breath/' the breath 
of life; and it is so rendered in the margin. This 
text is against Mr. Lee, and proves that, after the 
expiration of the breath, th^re is not an lt immortal 
spirit " animating the body ; but that as "faith 
without works is dead.'' so " the body without 
breath is dead also." 

in Mr. Lee's concluding article on the immate- 
riality of the mind, he argues thus: "The same 
words which are applied to man to describe his 
spiritual nature, are applied to God," "and any 
criticism which will invalidate the evidence in 
proof that the human soul is spirit, and not matter, 
will equally weaken the argument in support of the 
idea that God is a spirit." 

Now, kind reader, that you may see the force of 
this argument, I will apply it to another matter, 
thus: '•The same words which are applied to" 
the wind. " to describe " its " spiritual nature, are 
applied to God," "and any criticism which will 
invalidate the evidence in proof that the " wind 
"is spirit and not matter, will equally weaken the 
argument in support of the idea that God is a 
spirit." 

This is Mr. Lee's argument, only it is applied to 



35 



PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



the wind instead of man • and the reader can at 
once see its fallacy. I could give examples as Mr. 
Lee has done, but this is unnecessary. We might 
as well argue that because certain terms, generally 
applied to other objects, are used in relation to 
God, that their natures were similar, as to argue 
that because the term spirit is applied to man, 
therefore his spirit is like God's — immortal. The 
terms "sun," " soul," " heart," " wings," "sha- 
dow," &c. are used in relation to Jehovah; but 
who would thence infer that He is of the same 
nature with the " sun," or that His "soul" and 
" heart" are of the same nature with the "soul-' 
and " heart " of man ? 

Does Mr. Lee really believe that God has a 
"soul" and a " heart?" If so, He is a compound 
being, and no compound is eternal. These words 
are used in reference to Him, in an accommodated 
or figurative sense \ so also is the term spirit when 
applied to man — to the wind — to the breath of life 
— to the mind — and to the life itself. 

" God is a spirit " in the highest sense of the 
word; but w T hen this term is applied to the wind, 
and to man, it is used in a subordinate sense. As 
w r ell might Mr. Lee argue that because the same 
word is applied to the beasts, therefore, they have 
"'immortal spirits." Mr. Lee's argument, to be 
valid, must hold good in all cases to which the 
term is applied ; or else, if there be an exception, 
I shall maintain that man is an exception. 

Mr. Lee refers to the text. " the spirits of just 
men made perfect," which, 1 apprehend, applies to 
persons raised from the dead, and not to men in 
the flesh. He also quotes the text, " God is spirit ; 
and they that worship him must worship him with 
spirit and with truth," to follow his reading. What 
is the meaning of the passage ? It is this ; that 
mere outward forms — the " drawing nigh unto God 
with the lips, while the heart is far from him" — • 
is not acceptable worship. His worship must pro- 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



37 



ceed from the heart — be pure, sincere, and accord- 
ing to the " truth ;" for " in vain do you worship 
me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of 
men." But the text contains not the slightest 
proof that the spirit of man is immortal, which is 
the point to be proved. Mr. Lee has signally 
failed in this part of his argument ; indeed, we may 
say of them all, that they contain the elements of 
their own refutation. He set out to prove the 
"immateriality of the soul/"' and the reader can 
judge how far he has succeeded. Sometimes he 
affirms "immateriality" of the " soul," and then of 
the "spirit: 71 he quotes a text to prove this of the 
il soul" J and, anon, of the f * spirit:" so we are, after 
all, at a loss to know whether he affirms " immate- 
riality " of both, or of one. The popular theory 
presents a chaotic system — a confused mass — a 
perfect Babel, without order and without light. 
The advocates of it talk of "spiritual substances," 
and yet deny the existence of spirit-matter, as 
though there was any difference between "sub- 
stance" and " matter!" But I have gotten through 
with Mr. Lee's arguments, and must await his 
next article 



CHAPTER VIL 

In Mr. Lee's article No. 9, he takes up the 
question of " the conscious existence of the soul, 
after the death of the body." His argument is 
" from the immateriality of the soul." He tells 
his readers that " the foundation for this argument 
has been laid in preceding numbers, in which the 
immateriality of the human soul has been proved." 
Those of our readers, w T ho have read his articles, 
and our Review, w T ill doubtless be prepared to 
determine whether Mr. Lee has "proved" the 
" immateriality of the soul." I humbly conceive 
he has not " proved" it, nor is it in his power to 
4 



38 PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



"prove" it, by all the argument he can bring to 
bear upon the question. 

Mr. Lee thinks the question has been " misunder- 
stood,^ and attempts to define it more accurately. 
He quotes from Brother Storrs' " Six Sermons''' the 
following paragraph : 

u It is said — The soul is spiritual, hence indestruc- 
tible, and therefore immortal. One single consideration 
is sufficient to overthrow this argument, and show that 
it has no force. He who created can destroy. Our 
Saviour saith — c Fear him who is ABLE to destroy 
both soul and body in hell. 5 " 

Upon this he remarks, that M as a reply, it is 
defective in two particulars : 7? 

1. It assumes that " destruction, * ; means a loss 
of conscious existence, when applied to the soul :' 7 
which is "not admitted : ;; but, because " it belongs 
to another branch of the subject." he does not 
argue it. I will also let it pass, at present; for the 
same reason. 

2. Mr. Lee says — " Its capital defect is, it en- 
tirely misapprehends the question."' Let us see: 
Mr. Storrs states the argument of his opponents 
thus: " The soul is spiritual, hence indestructible, and 
therefore immortal/' There is no "misapprehen- 
sion" of the question here, for Mr. Lee himself 
argues upon this hypothesis ; and the very article I 
am now reviewing, is based upon this assumption. 

But, perhaps, Mr. Lee alludes particularly to the 
latter part of this paragraph, where Mr. Storrs says 
" one single consideration is sufficient to overthrow 
this argument, and show that it has no force. He 
who created can destroy. Our Saviour saith — 1 Fear 
him who is able to destroy both soul and body in 
hell." 

I apprehend that, if Mr. Lee will examine this 
argument again, he will find more force in it than 
lie is disposed to admit. The radical idea of im- 
mortality^ is, not subject to death, or dcathlessness. 
It follows, therefore, that that which is absolutely 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



39 



immortal cannot be " destroyed 7 ' by any power in 
the universe ) for, to reason otherwise, would be to 
make it mortal and immortal at the same time, 
which is an absurdity. And hence the force of 
Mr. Storrs' argument — if God be a able"' to u de- 
stroy" the soul, it is not absolutely immortal, because 
if immortal, it is necessarily indestructible. There 
is more argument, therefore, in Mr. Storrs' reply 
than Mr. Lee could perceive, or, perhaps, was 
willing to admit. Mr. Storrs' argument stands 
thus : 

That which, is immortal cannot be destroyed ) 

But God can destroy the soul ; 

Therefore it is not immortal. 

But, I apprehend. Mr. Lee himself does not state 
the question as clearly as it ought to be stated. 
The primary question, and the one Mr. Lee has 
been discussing, is this— is the soul naturally im- 
mortal? Mr. Lee says it is : and that it is in its 
nature analogous to the nature of God. If so. it 
cannot be destroyed, because God cannot destroy 
himself ! But God can destroy the soul, therefore 
it is not analogous to the nature of God — it is not 
immortal. Thus Mr. Storrs' argument comes back 
in all its original force. 

We take the broad ground, first, that the soul is 
naturally mortal ; second, that he is able to destroy it ; 
and third, that he wills to destroy it. if wicked. In 
order, therefore, for Mr. Lee to meet this question 
fully in all its latitude, he must prove, that the soul 
is naturally immortal — that God is not able to destroy 
it — and that he does not will to destroy it ! under 
any circumstances, 

3. But. the fact is, Mr. Lee does not know what 
the soul is. He says " it is a simple spiritual 
essence, immaterial, un compounded, and indivisible. 
Now, how does Mr. Lee know that the soul is a a 
simple spiritual essence, immaterial, uncom- 
pounded, and indivisible?" All this is mere as- 
sumption,, without the shadow of a shade of proof ! 



40 



PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



May I not ask Mr. Lee how he knows the soul is 
" uncompoundeci and indivisible V J From whence 
did he get his information ? for it must be based 
upon facts, or be a matter of revelation. If upon 
facts,, where are they? And, if upon revelation, 
give us the proof. 

But he says — u This argument is not designed to 
prove that God cannot destroy the human sou], 
nor even that he will nor, but only that the soul, 
being spirit and not matter, simple and not com- 
pound, indivisible and not dissoluble, it must be 
immortal in its nature, and live after the body is 
dissolved; yea, live forever, unless destroyed by 
the Almighty power that gave it being.'* 

Here Mr. Lee argues the immortality of the soul, 
upon the absurd assumption that it is "spiritual, 
uncompoimded and iiidivisible /" What an argument ! 
Credat Judceus Apella. But, after all, Sir. Lee 
virtually yields the question, for he does not intro- 
duce this argument to prove that God cannot, or 
that he will not destroy the soul ! Then, pray, 
what is gained to his cause by his argument? 1 
confess I can see nothing, for he says it u will live 
forever, unless," yes, "unless destroyed by the 
Almighty Power that gave it existence ! ?? Well, 
suppose God should "destroy" it, as he says he 
will, what then becomes of Mr. Lee's favorite 
doctrine % It will be as though it never had been ! 
Moreover, in confirmation of this view of the sub- 
ject, we are taught that the Lord God a drove out" 
the man from the Garden of Eden, lest he should 
partake of the tree of life, eat, and live forever, an 
immortal sinner. Immortality, being an attribute 
of God — " he only having immortality/' — he cannot 
destroy that which is immortal, because to do so 
would be to act contrary to himself. To prevent, 
therefore, such a result as would have followed 
the act of Adam's eating of the tree of life, he 
drove him out, and obstructed his way to the life- 
imparting tree ) knowing that, if he should partake 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



41 



of it, he would live forever as a necessary conse- 
quence. All the evidence, then, going to prove 
that God is " able,' and that he wills to destroy the 
soul of the sinner, equally disproves the '''natural 
immortality of the soul.' 3 

But. I repeat it, Mr. Lee does not know what the 
soul is. He speaks of it as an entity — as a distinct 
thing or essence, " uncompounded'' and - indivisi- 
ble/ 5 But. the truth is, Mr. Lee has been discuss- 
ing the merits of an attribute, rather than an entity . 
Life, strictly speaking, is not an entity but an at- 
tribute. Immortality is not a tiling-entity or essence, 
but a quality, an attribute of the thing of which it 
is predicated. Reasoning, therefore, upon a falsa 
assumption, what a flourish of i; sa\vs," 11 knives"' 
ana bi axes"' Mr, Lee makes in his first paragraph. 
His whole argument on this point, is inconclusive and 
defective in the extreme, when considered in relation 
to the truth of his own theory ! The fact is, ho 
subverts his own hypothesis, as we shall presently 
see. 

Mr. Lee concludes from his reasoning on the 
'■immateriality of the soul," that " God cannot 
destroy it, in the manner in which destruction isls 
suppose." - Further on he says — God cannot dis- 
solve that which is uncompounded, or divide that 
which is indivisible." Thus Mr. Lee's own reason- 
ing brings us back to the point, that, if the soul be 
immortal, it will, by a necessity of its own nature, 
live forever. But. as God has declared that, " the 
soul that sins shall die, ;; it follows, as a necessary 
consequence, that it is not immortal ; and, therefore, 
that it can be destroyed by an u exertion of power 
upon it : :; and also, by being left to the operation 
of its own laws, as in the case of Adam. 

Having subverted his own theory, Mr. Lee in 
vokes the aid of Mr. Drew to effect its annihilation ! 
Mr. Drew's rirst sentence is a death-blow to Mr, 
Lee's whole argument on the fancied " immortality 
of the soul!" Mr. Drew savs — and Mr. Lee em 
5* 



42 



PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



dorses it — * It has been already proved, that 
material bodies can never act but when they bring 
their surfaces into contact with each other !' ; This 
may have been deemed sound reasoning in the 
days of Mr. Drew, but, at the present time, every 
school boy of ordinary intelligence, knows better. 
Mr. Lee appears to have been asleep for a quarter 
of a century, without even dreaming in the time : 
and now that he is waked up he supposes every 
thing is just like it was when he fell asleep ! He 
is waked up in the wrong place ! and supposes 
himself living a quarter of a century past ; and. 
consequently, speaks and reasons in harmony with 
the ideas which he obtained at that time ! But he 
is behind the age. or else he would never have 
endorsed the sentence already quoted. Mr. Drew 
continues: "As an immaterial substance has no 
surface, it is a contradiction to suppose that matter 
can ever be brought into contact with it,*'' Sec. 

I am willing to submit it to the reader, yea. to 
Mr. Lee himself, whether Mr. Drew has not dis- 
proved the very position he intended to establish ! 
Let the reader remember, then, that Mr. Drew an I 
Mr. Lee regard it as "'a contradiction to suppose 
that matter can ever be brought into contact with" 
that which is " immaterial/* It follows, therefore, 
from their own principles, that, as the body is mat- 
ter, and the soul, in their estimation, is immaterial/' 
they can never be brought into contact! They, 
therefore, have no connection whatever ! If this 
argument is not suicidal, there is no truth in the 
universe. According to this absurd and ci vain 
philosophy/' God, being " immaterial'' in their 
view of the subject, can have no connection with 
the universe of matter he has created. I hesitate 
not to say, that this opinion is atheistical in its 
tendency, and absurd and monstrous in fact ! 

Mr. Lee. by endorsation, says — Whatever has 
an exterior, must have an interior ; and what has 
both must be extended : and what is thus extended 



Oy IMMORTALITY. 



43 



cannot be immaterial. 77 Mr. Lee, by the aid of 
Mr. Drew, has clearly proved, admitting the cor- 
rectness of their reasoning, that the soul is nothing ! 
The following is their description of it: It is 
•• simple, 77 Ji uncompounded, 77 indivisible, 77 " in- 
dissoluble : 77 without * : exterior 7 ' or u interior sur- 
face, 77 is not " extended," and "can never come 
into contact with matter /" Thus they have, by 
laboring to make the soul everything, reduced it to 
nothing! They have proved the very point we at 
first stated, viz. : That that which is immaterial is 
nothing — it is a nonentity! 

And. just at this point, let me ask Mr. Lee a few 
questions: Upon your hypothesis, was the -im- 
material soul,' 7 as you will have it, created of the 
dust, or breathed into the nostrils of Adam ? If 
created of the dust, it is not " immaterial and, 
if breathed into his nostrils, it had - extension"- — 
1 surface, 77 and necessarily came in " contact with 
matter: 77 and is. therefore, not " rm-material I" 

Again, how many " immaterial souls" did God 
create in the beginning ? How many had Adam ? 
How many had Eve ? Did they have more than 
one each] If they had only one each, whence 
have their numerous offspring derived theirs ?- You 
say it is * : indivisible 77 and ; - indissoluble. 77 conse- 
quently it is not transmissible! And that which is 
transmissible comes in " contact with matter : 77 but 
you say the "immaterial" soul ;; cannot come into 
contact with matter : 77 therefore it is not transmit- 
ted : and, consequently, unless God creates an 
''•immaterial soul 77 for everv child born, the offspring 
of Adam have no " immaterial soul' 7 — ergo, in your 
opinion, they have no soul at all ! So Adam, accord- 
ing to the working of your philosophy, has given 
birth to a soulless progeny ! Thus Mr. Lee. in attempt- 
ing to prove that men have "immaterial souls," 
has actually proved that they have none at all ! 

The remainder of Mr. Lee's article abounds in 
the same sort of logic : it is suicidal in reference 



44 



PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



to his own theory ! If Mr. Lee can reason no 
better than this upon his favorite view, he will 
murder his own cause, and bury it so deep, that no 
mortal hand shall ever be able to disinter it ! 

It would be a waste of time to extend the review 
of this article any further; but the reader 7 who is 
curious to see how completely Mr. Lee subverts 
his own theory, is referred to the article itself. 

In conclusion, let me say, that Mr. Lee is utterly 
unable to sustain his theory by such arguments as 
he has adduced in the above article j nor do I believe 
that the man lives who can do it, by any sort of 
argumentation within the grasp of mortal intellect. 

We fail back upon the conclusion, established 
alike by philosophy and revelation, that man is 
mortal in every part , and that immortality is the 
gift of God, through Jesus Christ, by a resurrection 
irom the dead ! 



CHAPTER VIII. 

11 The common sentiment gf mankind." 

Gentle reader ! I am glad, for your sake, that 
Mr. Lee has introduced the subject of, and based 
an argument on, u the common sentiment of man- 
kind"! 

He has proved, overwhelmingly and incontes- 
tably proved, the pagan origin of the popular doc- 
trine of immortality ! He has triumphantly sustained 
the very position we have long maintained, viz.: 
That u the immortality of the soul''' is pagan in its 
origin.) and was generally believed among pagans. 

But, strange to say, while Mr. Lee has sustained 
the above point, he makes use of it for the purpose 
of proving the soul immortal ! His argument 
amounts to this : 

The ancient Egyptians, Persians, Phenicians, 
Scythians, Cells, Druids, Assyrians, &e., believed 
inthe immortality of the soul — it was " the common 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



45 



sentiment 99 of all these nations. Therefore, the 
soul is immortal ! 

Or, to state it differently: 

That which is ^ the common /sentiment of man- 
kind." is true ; 

Bat the immortality of the soul is "the common 
sentiment of mankind y 7 

Therefore, the immortality of the soul is true! 

By this logic* Mr. Lee's proposition stands or 
falls ! Mr. Lee says — If destructionists can 
prove that the doctrine in question had some other, 
or if some other sentiment can be named, mani- 
festly false, and equally common in the world, of 
the origin of which no account can be given, we 
acknowledge they will evade the force of this 
argument: but until this is done the argument 
must prove ruinous to their theory/' 

I. We are called upon, by the above, to prove 
that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul had 
some other origin than the Bible. And, on this 
point, Mr. Lee, himself, has helped us to a con- 
siderable amount of evidence, as we before 
remarked: but we shall examine the question 
more closely than he has done. What if the Baby- 
lonians, Medes and Persians believed the soul 
immortal ? What if Zoroaster, Pythagoras, Socrates 
and Plato, taught it ? What if the sentiment 
abounds in Homer, Ovid and Virgil? Do these 
facts prove the doctrine all divine? If so, the 
prevalence of other u sentiments." held by these 
nations and distinguished persons, upon the same 
principle of reasoning, must also be divine. If 
Mr. Lee's logic will prove conclusive in one case, 
it will in another— yes ! in all others ! If he 
receive the pagan idea of immortality, he must 
take along with it the pre-existence of souls — the 
transmigration of souls — and the rejection of the 
resurrection of the body! He must not divide the 
dose, though bitter! but swallow the whole like a 
man I 



46 



PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



The oldest hypotheses of the Oriental World, 
upon this subject, resolved themselves into the 
doctrine of emanation and intonation; issuing from 
the u soul of the universe^ at birth, and reabsorbed 
at death. They regarded the soul as a part of the 
Deity; thus making him divisible, which is one of 
Mr. Lee's u essential properties of matter"! 

Dr. Good says — " If we turn from Persia, Egypt, 
and Hindostan to Arabia, to the .fragrant groves 
and learned shades of Dedan and Teman, from 
which it is certain that Persia, and highly probable 
that Hindostan, derived its first polite literature, 
we shall find the entire subject" (of the immor- 
tality of the soul,) "left in as blank and barren a 
silence, as the deserts by which they are sur- 
rounded ; or, if touched upon, only touched upon 
to betray doubt, and sometimes disbelief. The 
tradition, indeed, of a future state of retributive 
justice seems to have reached the schools of this 
part of the world, and to have been generally, though 
perhaps not universally, accredited ; but the 

FUTURE EXISTENCE IT ALLUDES TO IS THAT OF A 
RESURRECTION OF THE BODY, AND NOT OF A 

SURVIVAL OF THE SOUL AFTER THE BODY'S 
DISSOLUTION"! Here, then, is an exception to 
Mr. Lee's universal "consent of mankind.'*' We 
have one place — one county — where the popular 
dogma of immortal-soulism was " blank and 
barren and where the opposite view was "gene- 
rally" believed. And we find this, too, just where 
we might expect to find it, viz.: where the light of 
revelation shed its illuminating beams ! That country 
is ldumea ! Here Job, that venerable patriarchal 
saint, who held communion with the Living God, 
and not with the Bathos or Demiurgus of the Chal- 
deans, Egyptians, Assyrians, &c. — here, I say. 
Job lived ; and from this quarter we have, as Dr. 
Good expresses it, " that astonishing and transcen- 
dent composition " called " the Book of Job " a 
work/* says he — although on Mr. Lee's side of the 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



47 



question — "that ought assuredly to raise the 
genius of Idumea above that of Greece^ &c, and, 
may I not add, the knowledge of Job far above that 
of Zoroaster, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Dr. Dick 
and Mr. Lee — all combined ! 

Dr. Good continues — u Yet in this sublime and 
magnificent poem, replete with all the learning and 
wisdom of the age, the doctrine upon the subject before 
us is merely as I have stated iU a patriarchal or tra- 
ditionary belief of a future state of retributive justice, 
not by the NATURAL IMMORTALITY OF THE 
SOUL, BUT BY A RESURRECTION OF THE 
BODY"! 

Dr. Good makes this belief 11 patriarchal or tra- 
ditionary but this is unnecessary, as Job was 
doubtless an inspired man. Dr. Good's testimony 
is the more valuable, because he believed in the 
popular doctrine of immortality. 

Whether, therefore, the dogma of natural immor- 
tality originated with the old serpent, who said. 

Ye shall not surely die ) n or whether it originated 
in Egypt, Persia. Media, Babylonia, or elsewhere, 
it matters not. One thing is certain, it did not 
originate from God, else Job would have been in 
possession of it: and T will put Job's knowledge 
and wisdom against all the Babylonians, Persians. 
Medes, Assyrians, Zoroasters. and Platos on earth ! 
Again, this is doubtless the oldest book or docu- 
ment extant, and on that account demands the 
attention of the sincere inquirer after truth on this 
subject. 

u The Hindoo philosophers,'^ says Dr. Good, 
( - totally and universally denying a resurrection 
of the body, and supporting the doctrine (of future 
existence) alone upon the natural i:\diortality of 
the soul, and the Arabian philosophers (among whom 
was Job) passing over the immortality of the soul, 
and resting it alone upon a resurrection of the 
body. 77 

The Hindoo view of this question, is the legiti- 



45 * PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



mate tendency of the modern dogma on the same 
subject — it leads to a denial of the resurrection. 

Mr. Lee. then, is welcome to his Babylonian, 
Medo-Persian. Assyrian, and Hindoostan asso- 
ciates, and their authority ! He is welcome to 
the company of Zoroaster, Pythagoras. Orpheus. 
Socrates, Plato, and a host of others ! He is in 
learned! — but superstitious company ! But, to be 
consistent, he should go all the way with them : 
he should believe in the pre-existence and pre- 
intelligence of the soul — that it is a part of God — 
that it may suffer in purgatory — and that it may be 
transmigrated ! 

The Grecian philosophy was imported by Pytha- 
goras from India, whose philosophers reprobated 
the doctrine of a resurrection. So. when Paul 
preached through Jesus the resurrection of the 
dead, in the Argora of Athens, the Athenians 
declared he brought strange things to their ears, 
and inquired what the new doctrine was. 

Here, then, we have the whole subject before 
us. On one hand we have Mr. Lee's long array 
of nations, composing *' : the heathen world, believ- 
ing in the natural immortality of the soul, with its 
kindred appendages= On the other hand, we have 
the light of truth, concerning the resurrection of 
the body, pouring its steady rays from the days of 
Job, through the dark ages, down to the present 
time. 

And, new. I shall turn Mr. Lee's argument 
against him, by affirming that the common sen- 
timent of mankind ;; is wrong ! Truth has always 
been in the minority, and it always will be, until 
the Lord comes and takes the kingdom, and the 
greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven! 
Error, in some, or all its forms, is " the common 
sentiment of mankind. ;; And if Mr. Lee were to 
carry out his rule, he would be compelled to 
admit the eternity of matter, although he seems to 
have such an abhorrence of it. for his " heathen" 



ON OniOKTALITY. 



49 



witnesses depose to its truth ! Let us now state 
this argument in form: 

That which is " the common sentiment of man- 
kind' 7 is true ; 

But error is " the common sentiment of man- 
kind;*' 

Therefore, error is true ! 

But why should we take " mankind " as the 
standard of truth? Why not take a nation ? A 
11 heathen" nation, to follow Mr. Lee's example ? 
Why not take Europe ? or one of the nations of 
Europe ? Why not take Italy ? Why not take 
the Pope % W T hy not take the most enlightened 
nation on earth ? Will Mr. Lee submit his faith 
to such a standard ? If he were to submit his faith 
to the ••'common sentiment" of any nation on 
earth, he would be weighed in the balance and 
found wanting. Go to the "heathen world " to 
learn the doctrine of immortality ! Go to Babylon — 
to India — to Egypt — to the Eastern Magicians. 
Soothsayers, Astrologers and Philosophers, to learn 
the doctrine of eternal life? Place these in the 
collegiate chair, and let the venerable Job, of the 
land of Uz, sit at their feet, and learn 1 Place the 
wisdom of Zoroaster and his associates, which is 
" foolishness with God/' ; in opposition to the spirit 
of wisdom divine ? A man must be hard pressed 
for evidence to sustain his faith, when he leaves 
the oldest and most venerable document on earth, 
and seeks to the Vedas of the Brahmins and the 
Zendavesta of the Parseesfor light on the question 
of immortality ! 

Here, then, is a fact to which we call special 
attention, viz.: That the denial of the resurrection of 
the body teas as much ''the common sentiment of man- 
kind" as the doctrine of the soul's immortality. 
Among all Mr. Lee's witnesses, only one — Zoroaster 
— believed in, or taught, a resurrection. Now, I 
can find as many exceptions to Mr. Lee's "com- 
mon consent of mankind," in relation to the 
5 



50 



PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



immortality of the soul, as he can find on the sub- 
ject of a non-resurrection. Will Mr. Lee give me 
the lt origin'- of this u sentiment V' 

Mr. L. says — "If the doctrine of a future exist- 
ence be an error, it is the most general one that 
ever entered the world." kc. Mr. Lee here 
makes a false issue ; for it is not the c: doctrine of 
a fitfure existence that is denied; but it is the 
predication " of a future existence ; ' on the :i natu- 
ral immortality of the soul,'-' instead of the resur- 
rection of the body. 

Mr. Lee says—the doctrine of the immortality 
of the soul "prevails most where the Scriptures 
are most known and read.'" But. alas ! for Mr. 
Lee's cause, his evidence is all on the other side 
of the question ! If he had said — that the doctrine 
in question " prevails most where the Scriptures 
are least known and read." he would have spoken 
the truth ; and his statement would have har- 
monized with his heathen " testimony! For 
surely he will not contend that the Scriptures were 
" most known and read ; by the men and nations 
of whom he has spoken ! 

Again he says — " The doctrine must have had 
its origin." Of course. M:. Lee, it had its origin; 
but was that origin divine ? If it was, you have 
failed to prove it, for your witnesses are pagan* 
Taking the non-resurrection of the body as a senti- 
ment running parallel with the doctrine of ths 
soul's immortality — among the nations and tribes 
referred to. I will adopt Mr. Lee's mode of reason- 
ing, thus : As the xox-resurrecttox of the body 
prevails in the heathen wor!d : "and as no account 
can be given of its introduction, it follows- that it 
must have sprung from some one of the following 
sources: — Tt must be instinct, the result of natural 
reason, from the light of nature, the impression of 
God's spirit on the mind, or the principle of reve- 
lation contained in the Bible. Now, if it be 
instinct, it must be from the Creator: if it be the 



0>" IMMORTALITY. 



51 



result of natural reason, it cannot be unreasonable ; 
if it be from the light of nature, it is a revelation 
from God ; if it be the impression of God's spirit 
on the mind, it is no less a divine revelation ; and 
if it be the sentiment of the Bible, none but infidels 
will deny it ;; ! Thus Mr. Lee ; s logic will work 
both ways ! It will alike apply to every prevalent 
sentiment, true or false ! It will apply especially 
to many of the appendages of the immortality of 
the soul. But Mr. Lee makes a bad use of his 
own logic; for. will he tell me what sentiment has 
not sprung from one or the other of the sources he 
has mentioned? I apprehend he will find that 
every sentiment extant proceeded from one or the 
other of those sources. What, then, has Mr. Lee 
gained by this flourish? Absolutely nothing! 
What is "natural reason"? If Mr. Lee mean by 
this unenlightened reason, then I affirm that it has 
given birth, not only to his favorite doctrine, but a 
thousand other vagaries and absurdities which 
revelation repudiates, and enlightened reason scouts! 

2. Now, let us look at this subject from another 
point. 

In perfect harmony with what we have said, 
concerning the origin and prevalence of the popu- 
lar view, I will remark, that before the Babylonish 
captivity, and the Macedonian and Roman conquests, 
the Jews observed the most profound silence upon 
the state of the dead. They spoke of it as. a place 
of silence, darkness, and inactivity. This fact 
speaks volumes as to the - heathen" or pagan 
origin of the doctrine we are calling in question. 
They knew nothing of natural immortality till they 
were carried captive to Babylon, and mingled with 
some of Mr. Lee r s witnesses ! 

Again, " after the Hebrews mingled with the " 
Babylonians, " Greeks and Romans, they insen- 
sibly slided into their use of terms, and adopted 
some of their ideas on such subjects as those on which 
their oracles were silent." Hence the pecu- 



0'2 PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



liar views of the Pharisees, many of whom not 
only believed in the pre-existence of souls — but, 
also, their immortality and transmigration. This 
is the reason why the question was put to our 
Lord, concerning the man who was born blind. 
They supposed it possible for the man to have 
sinned in a previous state, which was the cause of 
his being born blind. They also thought that Jesus 
Christ was in possession of the soul of John Bap- 
tist, or one of the prophets. Let us now sum up 
the whole argument : 

1. We have seen that the doctrine of the immor- 
tality of the souL the pre-existence of the soul, and 
its transmigration, together with a reprobation of 
the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, was 
in its origin pagan or heathenish. Mr. Lee has 
given us ample proof of this. I have given addi- 
tional proof. 

2. That in -Idumea or Arabia — the country of 
Job. who is the author of the oldest document 
extant, we find the opposite doctrine prevailing; 
and a future life predicated on the resurrection of 
the body. 

3. That the prevalence of a sentiment is no 
proof of its truth, or correctness : but, if anything, 
arfords presumptive evidence against it. Truth 
has always been in the minority. 

4. That previous to the Babylonish captivity, 
the Jews were silent on the state of the dead, 
regarding it as a state of silence and darkness. 

5. But that after the Hebrews mingled with the 
Babylonians. Greeks and Romans, they adopted 
their ideas on such subjects as those on which 
their oracles — the Old Testament — was silent. (See 
Appendix to New Version.) 

6. And that reason unenlightened, has given 
birth to a thousand vagaries, and among them the 
do^rma of <: natural immortality. ; ' 

But. we are not done with this subject yet: we 
wish to place it where the hand of mortal disinter- 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



53 



ment can never reach it! And I now affirm, that 
revelation has placed the seal of condemnation on 
the oriental science, of a part of which Mr. Lee is 
the special advocate. 

First, then, in reference to the very nations 
whom Mr. Lee has convoked as witnesses, Paul 
says — a Professing to be wise men, they became 
fools; for they changed the glory of the immortal 
God into the likeness of an image of mortal man, 
of fowls, of four-footed beasts, and of reptiles." 
This will apply to Mr. Lee's Egyptian, Babylonian, 
Persian, Greek and Roman witnesses. Idolatry 
was as current among them as the idea of the 
soul's immortality \ so that even in Athens, at that 
time the most enlightened city of the oriental 
world, they had thirty thousand gods, and held the 
natural immortality of the soul ; but rejected the 
resurrection of the body. In the above quotation 
I have not followed the common version, though I 
have no objection to it ; but have given a better 
rendering of the language, which is sanctioned by 
Campbell and McKnight. Here is another: " For 
this doctrine (the preaching of Christ) is ; indeed, 
foolishness to the destroyed ; but to us. who are 
saved, it is the power of God. Therefore, it is 
written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, 
and will bring to naught the knowledge of the 
prudent. Where is the wise man ? Where the 
Scribe % Where the disputers of this world % 
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this 
world?" Again, Paul says— "The world by wis- 
dom knew not God." The Greeks sought after 
wisdom — the wisdom of the Platonian school, and 
consequently, the preaching of life and immortality, 
through Jesus Christ, by a resurrection from the 
dead, was "foolishness 11 to them. Paul did not 
teach "the wisdom of this world" — he did not 
speak the theological dialect of Greece and Rome. 
And here we are reminded of an important fact, 
thatj although the words and ideas, concerning 
5* 



54 



PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



natural immortality, are found scattered through 
the works of pagan philosophers, we have neither 
the one nof the other in all the revelations of God J 
Why ibis singular omission, if it be the doctrine of 
the Bible] "O," says Mr. Lee, "it is taken for 
granted."' Taken for granted, indeed! This is a 
mere evasion of the argument. There is not a 
particle of truth in it. The Bible does not take 
one doctrine "for granted" and then teach an oppo- 
site one f 

"The theological dialect of the oriental and 
occidental schools is a compound of foolish words 
and phrases, which make a foolish language," 
the product of confusion, mythology and ignorance. 
They r taught '* a vain philosophy the philosophy 
of Greece and Rome, which Paul justly avers is 
k * falsely so called." Hymeneus and Philetus 
appear to have been professors of this oriental 
science. What this science is, we have already 
seen; and I would here only remind you, that the 
dogma of a translation to heaven or hell at death, is 
one item of that profane science by which they over- 
threw the faith of some in the resurrection. It was 
upon this hypothesis that "some" among the 
Corinthians said there was "no resurrection;" 
and this, I repeat, is the legitimate tendency of 
the philosophy and theology of my friend 3Ir. 
Lee. 

In concluding this long review of Mr. Lee's, 
No. 10, I will, without arguing them, present the 
legitimate tendencies of the view we are opposing. 
It is furnished to my hand by an intelligent living 
author. 

1. The dogma of " immortal souls" contravenes the 
Mosaic account of the Fall. 

2. It reduces the Mosaic account to an absurdity. 

3. It necessitates a change of the words of the 
Spirit from their proper to a figurative significa- 
tion. 



OX IMMORTALITY. 



55 



4. It is subversive of the resurrection and the 
judgment. 

5. The pagan tradition of the soid's immortality, 
not only renders null and void the resurrection to 
life and judgment, but is equally subversive cf 

THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF MESSIAH OX EARTH 
AGAIX. 

6. The Hymenean Gnosis of immortal soul-ism^ 
ojid ethereal translation at death, abrogates the reign 
of Messiah on David/s throne for a season and a 
time. 

[ pledge myself to make good every item in the 
above indictment, when it is demanded by counter- 
evidence. 



CHAPTER IX. 

Mr Lee's article. Xo. 11, is devoted to "the 
well known opinions of the Jews. ;? in reference to 
the state of the dead. 

In the opening sentence of this article. Air, Lee 
says — -'-The Jews have always believed in the 
conscious existence of the soul after the death of 
the body, and in its immortality.* 

This is not a fact — it is not true — and his evi- 
dence has failed to prove it. as we shall see. 

1. We have before shown that, before the Baby- 
lonish captivity, the Jews observed the most pro- 
found silence in relation to the dead ; and spoke of 
their state as one of darkness, silence and inac- 
tivity. 

2. That after the Babylonish captivity, and the 
Macedonian and Roman conquests, they adopted 
their language and ideas, on such subjects as those 
Tspon which their oracles were silent. Let these 
facts be remembered forthey disprove the assertion 
of Mr. Lee, that "the Jews have always believed 
in the conscious existence ' J of the dead, and the 
"immortality ;; of the soul. Let the reader, also, 
notice, that Mr. Lee's testimony does not extend 



56 



PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



back to, much ]ess beyond this period. He has 
failed, then, to prove his first point. 

Mr. Lee quotes from Josephus : and here let me 
state a principle in giving testimony. A witness, 
in deposing to a fact or truth, is required and ex- 
pected to speak the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth. Josephus tells us what the 
Jews believed in his day ; but he does not tell us 
they "always''' so believed. He gives us to under- 
stand that they believed in the immortality of the 
soul, in a restricted sense; but he does not stop 
there, and. if his testimony upon the subject is to 
be received as evidence of the truth of the doc- 
trine, we must receive it all or none, Josephus 
says — "the Pharisees believe that souls have an 
immortal vigor in them, and that under the earth 
there will be rewards and punishments/' This 
was the great "national doctrine/ : to use Mr. Lee's 
words. Let Mr. Lee, then, be a Pharisee in all 
this, as the doctrine was not specially condemned 
by our Lord ! This testimony proves too much, and 
what proves too much, proves noihinsr. This is all 
in harmony with Mr. Lee : s pagan witnesses. They 
also proved too much for I\lr. Lee's cause. 

While it is admitted then, that the mass of the 
Jews believed in the pasran doctrine of immortality, 
Mr. Lee gains nothing from the admission \ because 
we have seen from whence they derived these 
ideas — ideas upon which their oracles were silent. 
And the fact, that they placed " rewards and pun- 
ishments under the earth,*' clearly enough indi- 
cates their pagan origin. 

According to the testimony of Josephus, the 
Pharisees did not believe in the resurrection of 
pagans : for he says they believe that souls have 
an immortal vigor in them ; and that under the 
earth there will be rewards or punishments, ac- 
cording as they have lived virtuously or vi- 
ciously in this life: and the vicious are to be de- 
tained in an everlasting prison, but that the virtuous 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



57 



SHALL HAVE POWER TO REVIVE AXD LIVE AGAIN. 

Antiq. B. xviii. C. 1. 3. In another place he 
says — " they say that all the souls are incorrupti- 
ble; but that the souls of good men only are removed 
into other bodies " — that is, they are transmigrated. 
In a word, from all the testimony of Josephus, we 
come to the following conclusions: 1. They be- 
lieved the heathen would not be raised from the 
dead. 2. That the righteous children of Abraham ' 
only would rise. 3. That his unrighteous children 
would not rise, but be detained in the prison house 
of the dead forever. 4. That the souls of good 
men passed into other bodies, or were transmigra- 
ted. So that Josephus' testimony proves more than 
Mr. Lee desires : and. if it be good on one point, it 
should certainly be received on collateral points. 
But the Lord has put the seal of condemnation 
upon the doctrines of both Sadducees and Pharisees. 
He said to his disciples — "Beware of the doc- 
trine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.*' 
They were both wrong: the Sadducees occupied 
one extreme, and the Pharisees another. And, as 
we have before seen, these views were Babylonish 
in their origin : and are not supported by the Jewish 
Scriptures. 

Mr. Lee refers to the " Jews' Service Book and 
in reference to this I will only quote the language 
of Christ — " In vain do ye worship me, teaching 
for doctrines the commandments of men.'* And 
again — " Ye make void the law through your tradi- 
tions. " 

Mr. Lee also goes into the Apocrypha; and for 
what purpose does he go there? To prove that 
"the Jews always believed in the immortality of 
the soul?" If so, his evidence fails, because the 
Apocrypha, according to his admission, was 
" written before the Christian era but not before 
the Babylonish captivity ! But, were I disposed, I 
could show from the very passages Mr. Lee has 
quoted from Esdras and the wisdom of Solomon, 



53 



PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



that he totally misapprehends and misapplies all 
the quotations he makes. But I do not deem the 
document of sufficient importance to do so. I will 
however, proceed to show that the most authorita- 
tive parts of the Apocrypha, those bearing the 
names of some of the authors of some of the books 
composing the Bible, teach a very different doc- 
trine from Mr. Lee's. 

First, then, as a specimen, read 2 Esdras vii. 31, 
u And after seven days the world, that yet waketh 
not, shall be raised up, and that shall die that is 
corrupt." If this refer to the resurrection, which 
it appears to do, from the context, then it proves 
the ''second death " of the "corrupt/' which Mr. 
Lee denies. Again, at the 15th verse — "Now 
therefore, why disquietest thou thyself, seeing thou 
art but a corruptible man ? and why art thou 
moved, whereas thou art but mortal V j 

But let us examine the '-Wisdom of Solomon," 
which has a much higher claim than the Book of 
Esdras, and see what he says on the question of 
death and immortality. Chapter i. 12, 13, 14, 15, 
16 — ' 4 Seek not death in the error of your life : and 
pull not upon yourselves destruction with the works 
of your hands. For God made not death : neither 
hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living* 
For he created all things that they might have their 
being : and the generations of the world were 
healthful; and there is no poison of destruction in 
them, nor the kingdom of death upon the earth: 
(For righteousness is immortal;) but ungodly 
men with their ivorks and words called it to them: 
for when they thought to have it their friend, they 
consumed to naught, and made a covenant with it* 
because they are worthy to take part with it." This 
certainly does not teach the natural immortality of 
the soul. Again, in the 2d chapter, " For God 
created man to be immortal, and made him to be 
an image of his own eternity; nevertheless, " not- 
withstanding this purpose on the part of God, 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



59 



c through envy of the devil came death into the 
world ; and they that do hold of his side do find it. ?? 
Here it is clearly taught, that God, when he created 
man, designed his immortality—his eternal life, 
but that through the envy of the devil, death came 
into the world, and those who hold of his side, find 
death their portion. The passage Mr. Lee quotes 
from the 3d chapter, he totally misapplies. " In 
the sight of the unwise they seemed to die,'* in 
the Sadducean sense of not living again, u but they 
are in peace." "This hope is full of immortality/' 
which it could not be, if they already possessed it, 
for " hope 5 ' relates to the future — u the time of their 
visitation^ which is spoken of in the 7th and 8th 
verses. The reader is requested to turn to the 7th 
chapter of the Wisdom of Solomon, and read the 
five first verses, and compare it with what we have 
already quoted here ; and, also, what we have 
elsewhere said on the nature of man. 

I will quote one passage more from the Apocry- 
pha : it is found in Ecclesiasticus xvii. 27-32. 
" Who shall praise the most high in the grave, in- 
stead of them which live and give thanks ? Thanks- 
giving PERISHETH FROM THE DEAD, AS FROM ONE THAT 

is not : the living and sound in heart shall praise 
the Lord. For all things cannot be in men, because 
the son of man is NOT IMMORTAL." Again, he 
says — " All men are bat earth and ashes." The 
Wisdom of Solomon was doubtless written before 
the Babylonish Captivity, and Ecclesiasticus ap- 
pears to have been written about, or a little after 
that time. Thus we have proved, first, that the 
Jews did not u always" believe in the immortality 
of the soul ; and, secondly, that, even after their 
return from Babylon, one of their principal writers, 
the author of Ecclesiasticus, did not teach it ) all of 
which is in harmony with the Bible. Mr. Lee's 
cause has gained nothing, I apprehend, by going 
into the Apocrypha ! 



60 



PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



He next appeals to the Bible; but, alas ! for his 
theory, he crucifies it afresh, and puts it to public 
shame ! He quotes Math. xiv. 26, and Luke xxiv, 
36-39, Mark vi. 49. 

In Matthew and Mark the original word is phan- 
tasma, a phantom ; and such is also the marginal 
reading in Luke. In the cases recorded by Mat- 
thew and Mark, the disciples thought they saw a 
phantom, but they were mistaken, as all other per- 
sons have been ever since. Let the reader notice, 
then, that in the only cases recorded, where the 
disciples supposed they saw a phantom — ghost, they 
were deceived ; and that there is not a case differ- 
ing from this on record ! 

In the case referred to by Luke, we have the 
subject presented in all its power and force. The 
Lord Jesus had arisen from the dead; his Father 
" had shown him the path of life/ 7 and " demon- 
strated him as his son, by his resurrection from the 
dead' 7 — " death " now " had no more dominion over 
him,' 7 — he was immortal— and as such he appears • 
in their midst ! u They were terrified and affrighted 
and supposed they had seen a spirit — a phantasma } 
or phantom — ghost. And now he proceeds to cor- 
rect their ideas of such things by asking, " Why 
are ye troubled ? and why do thoughts arise in 
your hearts ! Behold my hands and my feet, that 
it is I, myself : handle me, and see; for a spirit — 
a phantasma— hath not flesh and bones, as you see 
me have. And when he had thus spoken, he 
showed them his hands and his feet.' 7 Thus cor- 
recting their errors on the subject of spirit, or phan- 
toms, and ; at the same time, demonstrating the mate- 
riality OF SPIRITUAL BODIES ! 

Here is " a quickening spirit, 7 ' as Paul says, with 
11 flesh and bones, hands and feet?'' Here we have 
a glorious specimen of a spiritual, immortal body — 
not "immaterial, 77 but material — real— tangible ; 
something which could be tl handled 77 and " seen !? 7 



OX IMMORTALITY. 



6! 



What becomes of Mr. Lee's " immaterial soul " in 
the light of this fact? His theory is exploded! 
his foundation demolished ! his superstructure 
crumbled into dust, and his theology a thing of 
nought ! the ignis fatuus of a day ! This fact, I 
repeat it. sweeps away Mr. Lee's whole theory of 
a immateriality/ 1 ' demolishes Mr, Drew's logic, and 
nullifies all the rhetoric of Pythagoras, Plato, So- 
crates, and Zoroaster. It eclipses all the philoso- 
phy of Babylonia, Egypt, Media, Persia, Greece 
and Rome 1 It swallows, up all the traditions of 
the Jewish Service Book, Josephus, and the Apo- 
crypha ! It casts into the shade all the learning 
of Pharisees and Sadducees, ancient or modern! 
because it is life and immortality brought to 

LIGHT ! !" 



CHAPTER X. 

In Mr. Lee's article No. 12., he bases an argument 
on the doctrine of what he is pleased to call "the 
primitive church," cr the " Apostolic Fathers." He 
says — "In an investigation like the one in which we 
are engaged, it is of the utmost importance to under* 
stand what w T as the doctrine of the early Christians, 
who received their instructions from the Apostles, 
and those who immediately succeeded them." 



62 



PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



As a preliminary question, I would ask, What do 
we understand by "the primitive church ?" and "the 
early Christians ?" I understand what Mr. Lee means, 
but, I apprehend, he is utterly wrong in his hypothe- 
sis. " The primitive church," in point of fact, was 
the first church established by the Apostles ; and this 
will carry us back to Jerusalem, the locality of the 
first Christian Congregation. The " early Christians 99 
are those who first received the Gospel of Christ, and 
obeyed it. And, in this view of the subject, I grant 
that "it is of the utmost importance to understand 
what their doctrine was ; but I do not suppose it 
possible to determine this point by an appeal to those 
who have been termed "Apostolic Fathers." But, 
why appeal to these " Fathers " at all 1 Mr. Lee's 
doctrine was either taught by the Apostles, or it was 
not ; if it was, surely he can make it appear from 
their writings; but, if it was not taught, why appeal 
to the Fathers to prove that which is false? 

That must be a bad cause which requires such 
testimony to sustain it, in the absence of all scrip- 
tural evidence ! 

But in reference to these Fathers, I will remark, 
that their writings are not to be relied upon. The 
five Fathers who flourished in the first century, were 
Barnabas, Hermas, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and 
Polycarp. 

The first of these quoted by Mr. Lee is St. Clement. 
This Clement, if I mistake not, is claimed as one of 
the Popes of Rome, by Catholic authority. They 
place Peter in the chair first, then Linus, who trans- 
ferred it to Anacletus, then Clement. Eusebius. 
book ii,i chap. 2, page 82; chap. 13, page 100. 

Speaking of the writings of Clement, Da Pin, who 
is regarded as an authentic Roman Catholic historian, 
proves them to be spurious; because, first, "The 
second epistle of St. Clement directed to St. James, 
speaks of the Ostiarii or door-keepers, arch-deacons 
and other ecclesiastical oflicers, that were not then 
introduced into the church /" 2d., " This letter mentions 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



63 



st/5-deacons, an order not then established in the 
church." p. 584. 

But, in relation to all, or most, of these writings of 
the Apostolic Fathers, I will again refer to Du Pin. 
" Criticism is a kind of torch, that lights and con- 
ducts us, in the obscure tracts of antiquity, by 
making us able to distinguish truth from falsehood*, 
history from fable, and antiquity from novelty. 'Tis 
by this means, that in our times we have disengaged 
ourselves from an infinite number of very common 
errors into which our fathers fell for want of ex- 
amining things by the rules of true criticism. For 
it is a surprising thing to consider how many spurious 
books we find in antiquity ; nay, even is the FIRST 
AGES OF THE CHURCH. 5 ' He then proceeds to 
give the reasons which prompted persons thus to 
publish " Spurious Books," the first of which is, " the 
malice of heretics ; who, to give the greater reputa- 
tion to their heresies, composed several books, which 
they attributed to persons of great reputation" &c. 
"And thus the first heretics devised false Gospels, 
false Acts and false Epistles of the Apostles, 
and their Disciples," &c. 

Mr. Hinton says of these Fathers, that " There are 
no writings of these venerable men that can be 
safely relied on as the productions of their pens, 
except, perhaps, the epistle of Clement;" and the 
reader has seen the disposition we make of his 
writings. Furthermore, he says — "Indeed, such 
was the state both of literature and morals, in the 
fourth and subsequent centuries, that the favorite 
occupation of the Monks of those days, seems to 
have been first to write the most ridiculous nonsense 
by way of indicating their literary taste ; and then 
fraudulently to attach to it the name of some eminent 
Father of the first or second century, by way of 
proving the high state of their moral sensibility." 

Mosheim says — " The epistle of Barnabas was the 
production of some Jew," &c. "The 'Shepherd of 



64 



PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



Hermas,' was composed, in the second century by 
Hermes, who was brother of Pius, bishop of Rome." 

But, after all, it seems to me that Mr. Lee has 
rather forced Polycarp to testify in favor of his 
hypothesis, than otherwise, and that the quotation 
made does not legitimately prove it. But, be this as 
it may, there is little or no reliance to be placed on 
any of these reputed Epistles, as we have already 
seen. 

But, I would have the reader remember, that even 
in the Apostles' day, " the mystery of iniquity " began 
to work, and to develope itself. Many errors, and 
among them, I apprehend, that advocated by Mr. 
Lee himself, were quite prevalent; even in the 
Apostolic Age. Of this class were Hymeneus and 
Philetus, who, by advocating the opinion now taught 
by Mr. Lee, Mr. Brewster, Dr. Bush, and others, 
denied the proper resurrection of the body, and 
M overthrew the faith of some." If a man puts on his 
" resurrection body" when he dies, then the resur- 
rection of the body at the coming of Christ is a 
nullity and a fable! This view obtained before the 
death of the Apostles ; no marvel, therefore, that we 
should find traces of it in the first and second cen- 
turies, and down to the present time. 

What doctrine, I ask, has not been proved by the 
testimony of the Fathers 1 Mr. Lee goes to them to 
prove the "immateriality" (the nothingness) of the 
soul: the Psedobaptist to prove Infant sprinkling; the 
Baptist to prove immersion; the Catholic to prove 
that Peter was the first Pope, the truth of the doctrine 
of Purgatory, the invocation of saints, Apostolic 
succession, &c, &c. Mr. Lee says — "It is of the 
utmost importance to understand what was the doc- 
trine of the early Christians, who received their 
instructions from the Apostles, and those who imme- 
diately succeeded them." Let him, then, be honest 
to them, and to himself, and believe all they taught! 
But, I apprehend, he would not be willing to endorse 
the sentiments of even all the extracts he has made . ? 



0-N IMMORTALITY. 



65 



And I am sure that their testimony is not necessary, 
except to sustain a rotten cause ! 

But, in order to rebut all the remaining force of 
Mr. Lee's argument, I w ill introduce a passage from 
Justix Matltyb, who was born A. D. S9., and suf- 
fered death for Christ A. D. 163. He tells Typho, 
the Jew, "that some indeed called Christians, are in 
fact atheists (atheai — without God) and impious 
heretics, because in every way, they teach blasphemy, 
impiety and folly." He gives proof of his own sin- 
cerity, and protests that he was "determined to follow 
not men, nor human authority, but God and the doc- 
trine taught by him/ 3 adding, "should you happen 
upon some who are called Christians indeed, and yet 
are far from holdin g these sentiments, but even dabe to 
assail the God Oj Abraham, Isaac and Jacob with 
blasphemy and say. 'these is ho he site, recti ox ov 
the dead ; btt INSTANTLY WHEN THEY DIE, 
ARE RECEIVED UP INTO HEAVEN. BO NOT 
COUXT THESE AMONG CHRISTIANS, even as 
they are not Jews, if accurately considered, who are 
called Sadducees. and the like sects of Genistar, Meristar, 
Galileans, hellixists, PHARISEES, Baptists (a sect 
that followed John the Baptist) and others ; but under 
the name of Jews and sons of Abraham, they worship 
God, as he accuses them, with their lips only, while 
their heart is far from him. But I, and all who are 
sound in the Christian faith, are acquainted with the 
resurrection of the body, and the 1000 years in Jeru- 
salem, that shall be rebuilt, adorned, and enlarged, as 
the Prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah, and others declare.' 5 
Brooks on Prophecy, page 52 ; also DufSeld's work, 
Justin Manyr himself affirms that he was contempo- 
rary with the Apostle John, who wrote the Revela- 
tion, in which mention is made of the 1000 years 
live times, in connexion with the universal subjuga- 
tion of evil, the resurrection from the dust of the 
sleeping saints, and their reign with Christ. 

Here, then, we have a clear and distinct expression 
of sentiment, in relation to this point; while Mr. Lee 
6* 



68 PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



has to infer from the language he quotes, that such 
was the view of the authors he cites. Justin Martyr 
distinctly tells Trypho, that he was not to " count 
those as Christians" who believed the, now, popular 
doctrine ! Mr. Brooks says — " Irenaeus ranks these 
professors, in his work against Heresies (book v,) as 
among the heretical ; and the testimony of the church 
is uniform on this point (if we except some question- 
able passages in Cyprian) down into Popish times; 
and, indeed, it was the general opinion of the Greek 
and Latin churches down to the Council of Florence, 
held under Pope Eugenius IV., A. D. 1439. 

Bishop Taylor, iu his work on the * Liberty of 
Prophesying ' (viii.) sets this in a clear light. He 
says — "it is a plain recession from antiquity, which 
was determined by the council of Florence — piorum 
animas purgatas, fyc, mox in caelum recipi et intueri 
dare ipsum Deum Trinum et TJnum sicuti est — that 

THE SOULS OF THE PIOUS, BEING PURIFIED, ARE T MME- 
BIATELY RECEIVED INTO HEAVEN AND BEHOLD CLEARLY 

the Triune Jehovah just as he is: for those who 
please to try, may see it resolved dogmatically to the 
contrary by Justin Martyr, Irenoeus, Origen, Chrysos- 
tome, Theodoret, Arethas Ccesariensis, and Euthymi- 
us, who may answer for the Greek church. And it 
is plain that it was the opinion of the Greek church, 
by that great difficulty the Romans had of bringing 
the Greeks to subscribe to the Florentine Council, 
where the Latins acted their master piece of wit and 
stratagem — the greatest that hath been till the famous 
Council of Trent. And for the Latin church, Ter- 
tullian, Ambrose, Austin, Hilary, Prudentius, Lactan- 
tius, Victorinus, and Bernard, are known to be of 
opinion, that the souls of the saints are in abditis 
receptacuUs et exterioribus atriis — in unseen recepta- 
cles and outer darkness — where they expect the 
resurrection," &c. 

The early Refuvmers maintained the primitive faith 
on this point, plainly perceiving that the object of the 
Papists was to help forward the doctrine o/purgatort 



ON IMMORTALITY, 



67 



and invocation of saints. Thus Tyndal, disputi 
with the Papists, says, if the souls be in heave 

TELL ME WEIT THEY BE NOT IN AS GOOD CASE AS T 

angels be \ And then, what cause of the resu 

HECTION ?" 

And, again, in reply to Sir Thomas More, who < 
jects against Luther — that his doctrine encouras 
the sinner to continue in sin, seeing it so Ion? po 
poned the ultimate judgment, Tyndal says, " Chri 
and his apostles taught no other, but warned to Ic 
for Chnsfs coming again every hour ; which comi 
again, because ye believe it will never be, the 
fore have ye feigned that other merchandise" — 
the' instantaneous translation of souls to heaven at 
death ! 

Calvin also, in his Psycopannuchia, replies thus to 
another objection against this doctrine: — -'I answer, 
that Christ is our head, whose kingdom and glory 
have not yet appeared. If the members were to go 
(to heaven) before their head (comes) the order of 
things would be inverted and preposterous. But we 
shall follow our Prince then, when he shall come 
in the glory of his Father, and sit upon the throne of 
his majesty, p. 255. It is greatly to be lamented, that the 
Protestant Cnurch of a later period should have fallen 
into the errors of the Papists on this subject (abating 
the distinct acknowledgement of Purgatory) — errors, 
the adoption of which has done more than any other 
thing, perhaps", toward withdrawing from the church 
the lively expectation of Christ's Advent." This doc- 
trine of the natural immortality of the soul, being 
pagan in its origin, was incorporated with Christian- 
ity, and constituted tae grand work of the Apostacy. 
Upon it was built the doctrine of Purgatory, invoca- 
tion of saints, &c. When Martin Luther fir?" com- 
menced his crusade against f* the Mother of Harlots 
and abominations of the earth," he repudiated the 
doctrine in que-tion, as a part of the strong delusion 
of th j wicked One. 

B'Aubigne says— " Duke George of Saxony, who 



68 



PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



would neither connect himself with Rome nor with 
Wittemberg, had written, as early as the 15th Oc- 
tober, 1521, to Duke John the the Elector's brother, to 
induce him to side with those who opposed the pro- 
gress of the Reformation. ' Some,'' wrote he, 4 deny the 
immortality of the soul, and these Friars too, drag the 
Relics of St. Anthony through the streets, and through 
them into the gutters. All this comes of Luther's 
teaching.' " 

The following is an extract from Audiin's Life of 
Luther, which will prove that Luther rejected the 
pagan dogma of an immortal soul in the animal Man. 
" He is speaking of the bad principle of every one 
construing scripture to suit himself, and adduces the 
Italians as illustrative of its evil tendency, which prac- 
tise, says he, was first introduced by Martin Luther. 
Thus he writes : "These were new lights, who came 
to announce, that they had discovered an irresistible 
argument against the Mass, Purgator)\ and Prayer to 
the saints. This was simply to deny the Immortality 
of the soul, an idea that had been hatched in the 
brains of some Italian refugees, who were publicly 
laughed at. They left Wittemberg and went to 
Geneva, where we find them in 1561, sustaining in 
a O,, owded school, and in printed theses, that all which 
has been said about the Immortality of the soul was 
invented by Antichrist for the purpose of making the 
Pope's pot boil. Purgator ium cum missa et pontifice 
romano melius abolere possumus, quam si dicamus 
simul anima cum corpore extingui. QuidquiJ a?ii- 
marum habetur immortalitate, ab Antichrisio ad statu- 
endam suam culinam excogitatum est. This propo- 
sition was really maintained in Geneva, not however 
in General Assembly as Prateolus relates in Elenctu 
voce. p. 72, but by some Italian exiles, who published 
their theses, and maintained them in full school.' — 
Boyle, Art. Luther. 

" They quoted Luther, who had said, 4 It is idle to 
trouble ourselves with endeavouring to prove that the 
soul is produced by ivay of propagation, or that it is 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



69 



infused into the body at the moment of creation. I 
maintain with the poet, that the child follows its 
parent. * Nihil est quod dicitur, anima rationalis 
creando infunditur et infundendo creatur : melius hoc 
in re docuit poeta dicers ■: patrem sequitur sua proles. 1 
Qp. Luther, t. xi ; Boyle, Art. Luther. They mis 
understood the passage." Audlin, pp. 192, 193. 

The doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul, 
is the foundation on which the Harlot Mother sits ; 
and, as she is the mother of harlots, all her daughters 
have drank deeply of her spiritual fornication ! The 
whole Protestant World is tinctured with this subtile 
heresy ; and in vain do they oppose the Mass, Purga- 
tory, and the invocation of saints, whose very exist- 
ence depends upon the popular dogma of immortality, 
while they maintain, uphold and defend this founda- 
tion ! If the popular doctrine be true, what argu- 
ment can you bring against Purgatory] What 
against the invocation of saints ? None, so effective 
as the one we oppose to those false and delusive dog- 
mas. 

Men, Brethren and Fathers ! be protestants indeed, 
and renounce every relic — the last vestige of Catho- 
licism, or cease to call yourselves such ! We are 
now grappling with the great City of Pago-papal 
Babylon ; come, and with us lay hold of the mighty 
lever of Truth, that the superstructure may fail, and, 
like a millstone cast into the deep, be found no 
more at all ! 

In Mr. Lee's article No. 13, he introduces the His- 
tory of Eusebius, from which he quotes to prove his 
favorite theory. I shall make but few remarks on 
this testimony — just enough to show its inadequacy 
to prove the doctrine in question. And, first, Mr. 
Lee does not distinguish between an historical fact 
and the mere opixiox of Eusebius himself. He 
quotes from page 148, where Eusebius gives an ac 
count of the martyrdom of Polycarp, and speaks of 
him as " now crowned with the crown of immortality 
and bearing off the indisputable prize" Now, as 



70 PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS 



Eusebius is professedly giving us a history of the 
church — of things on earth — of persons in this life, 
and not after they are dead — I apprehend this is no 
history at all, but merely the opinion of the author, 
which is worth no more than the opinion of Mr. 
Lee, or any other man living or dead. And I might 
ask the question — How did Eusebius know that 
Polycarp was then "crowned with the crown of 
immortality ?" Is such information as this a matter 
of history, or of revelation ? 

What we have said of Polycarp is equally ap- 
plicable to what Eusebius says of Lucius, Blandina, 
and the martyrs in general. They were, in the 
opinion of Eusebius, living and happy although dead ! 

But, what is the opinion of Eusebius worth, in 
opposition to the teaching of the Apostles 1 If the 
opinion of Eusebius, in reference to the martyrs, 
was true, they were more fortunate than Paul, who 
did not expect his " crown " till " the day of Christ." 

Mr. Lee quotes the following from Eusebius : 
"But about this time, other men sprung up in 
Arabia, as the propagators of false opinions. These 
asserted that the human soul, as long as the present 
state of the world exists, perished at death and died 
with the body, but that it would be raised again with 
the body at the time of the resurrection. And as a 
considerable council was held on account of this, 
Origen, being again requested, likewise here discussed 
the point in question, with so much force, that those 
who had before been led astray, completely changed 
their opinions." p. 153. 

The reader will please observe that in this extract, 
Eusebius first gives his own personal view of the 
docmnes propagated by the persons alluded to, 
and characterizes them as " false opinions." 

2d. That these " opinions" were so prevalent as 
to call for a " considerable council" to suppress 
them. This was not the only truth suppressed by a 
" council ! " 

3d. That Obigen was "cgam requested" to dis- 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



71 



cuss the question involved, by which we learn that 
this was not the first time this question had been 
agitated ; nor was this the first effort made by Pago- 
christians to nullify the truth. Bearing in mind the 
fact, that Origejt was in fact the Father — the origin 
of almost all heresy in the church ; and that he lived 
in the third century, long after "the mystery of 
iniquity began to work and comparing the above 
facts with the testimony of Justin Martyr, who 
taught Trypho the Jew "not to regard such as 
Christians," who held the doctrines inculcated in this 
extract; and, I apprehend, Mr. Lee's cause has 
gained but little from the authority of Eusebius. 

To recapitulate, I will remark, 

1st. Mr. Lee has not sustained his doctrine philo- 
sophically, but has effectually subverted his own 
theory. 

2d. His argument, based on "the common senti- 
ment of mankind,'' is null and void* 

3d. He has failed to make it good from Jewish 
testimony. 

4th. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers 91 are 
not reliable — are inconsistent, contradictory, and 
often absurd ; and, being alike quoted to prove every 
other disputed question in Theology, utterly fail to 
sustain his theory. 



CHAPTER XL 

In Mr. Lee's article " No. 14," he comes at last to 
the Bible for proof, that the soul survives the body. 
It really seems as if he was unwilling to risk his 
doctrine upon the authority of the Bible only ; and 
hence he has " compassed sea and land" to fortify 
his position before coming to the sacred Record, as 
though any amount of human testimony could in- 
validate the word of God ! We have followed him 
in his meandering course, in order that the reader 



72 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



might appreciate the value of his extraneous testi- 
mony. And, now, having come to the word of God, 
let us examine the subject in its heavenly light. 

1st. His first Bible argument is Eccles. iii. 21. 
" Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward 
and the s^ irit of the beast that goeth. downward to 
the earth." Not satisfied with the common reading, 
he invokes the aid of Dr. Clarke and Prof. Roy. 
Clarke gives us a paraphrase, rather than a transla- 
tion,^ which he weaves his own theological dogma; 
and Prof. Roy professes to give a literal translation. 
Well, I will meet Mr. Lee on his own ground, and 
adopt the translation of Mr. Roy : " Who knoweth 
the spirit of the sons of Adam that ascends upward 
to the highest place; or even the spirit of the cattle 
which descends downwards into the lowest part of 
the earth?" 

In order to understand this, we must examine the 
context, for Solomon must not be supposed to con- 
tradict himself. In the 19th verse he presents an 
analogy between man and the beasts. "As the one 
dieth, so dieth the other; yes, they all have one 
breath ; so that a man (in these things) " hath no pre- 
eminence above a beast: for all is vanity "on mortal. 
"All go to one place; all are of the dust, and all 
turn to dust again." Now, with this context before 
us, what is the meaning of the 21st verse] surely 
not that man has an immortal spirit, which outlives 
the body, for that is. incompatible with the context, 
But, using the term "spirit" to designate the mind, 
he proceeds to show, by interrogation, the difference 
between man and the beasts — the mind of one 
" ascends to the highest place," while the mind of 
the other is low — "descending to the earth" — cannot 
rise higher than the earth. If this be not the mean- 
ing of the passage, then there is no reconciling the 
text with the context. And, I apprehend, this text 
does not refer to the destiny of either man or beast 
It has no bearing whatever upon Mr. Lee's question, 
and he must feel himself hard pressed to force this 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



into his service. The proceeding verses do refer to 
the common destiny of man and beasts at deaih, but 
the 21st verse contains the contrast while living. 

2d. Mr. Lee next refers to Eccles. xii. 7. " Then 
shall the dust return," &c. But we have already, in 
a previous article, examined this ; and, therefore, will 
only remark in further reply to Mr. Lee, that the fact 
of the " spirit returning to God who gave it " does 
not prove its consciousness or happiness. "He 
gathers to Himself the breath of all flesh," but must 
we thence infer that the breath is conscious ] Mr, 
Lee takes too much for granted, and reasons too 
loosely. In a former article he admits, himself, that 
the above text may refer to the " breath of life 
breathed into the nostrils of Adam. 

3d. Ps. xc. 10, is quoted as proof. The latter 
clause is all we have to do with at present — " We 
fly away." " Our argument," says Mr. Lee, "hangs 
upon this." "No man of sense and taste," says Mr- 
Lee, " would use such language, with reference of 
death, who believes that there is in man no living 
soul, which continues to live after the body is dead." 
Mr. Lee waxes hot! Keep cool, my dear sir, and 
you will feel the better for it! 

With all due deference for your sweeping asser- 
tion, I shall have to come to a contrary opinion. 
Job said " My days are swifter than a weaver's shut- 
tle" — "My life is wind/" And the Psalmist, using 
a figure of the same character, speaks of death as 
"a flying away." That David meant death, and 
nothing but death, is evident from the whole passage. 
But I forbear further comment on this passage, lest 
Mr. Lee may think me severe ; for, really, I think he 
could not have selected a more inconclusive text in 
j the Bible. But, my worthy friend has, from the 
beginning, given constant proof of his inability to 
sustain the popular dogma of immortality; and 
hence he — 

"runs to each avenue, and shrieks for help! 
But shrieks in vain ! " 

7 



74 



SCEIPTtTRAL ARGUMENTS 



4th. His fourth proof is founded on Matt. x. 28, 
and Luke xii. 4, 5. Mr. Lee displays his strength 
on these texts, but he does not treat the subject 
fairly; for he writes as though a single word had not 
been said on the passages quoted! This is not a 
candid policy, though it may be best for his side, of 
the question. 

The first deduction Mr. Lee makes from the texts 
quoted, is, that "the body and soul are not the same." 
This is not the first time he has intimated that his 
opponents assumed this absurd position. And I 
now take occasion to inform Mr. Lee, if he does not 
know it, that I know of no man so superlatively 
ignorant as to maintain such an idea; and I hope, 
for the sake of his own reputation, for honesty and 
truth, he will not again make the insinuation. 

Mr. Lee has entered upon the discussion of this 
subject without defining his terms, and hence the 
confusion attending the presentation of his testi- 
mony. 

Now, I ask Mr. Lee what is the soul? Does he not 
know that this term, various in meaning, must be 
defined by the context 1 Does he not know that it is 
often used to signify life 1 — the mind 1 — the person ? 
—the body? If he knows this, why does he not 
define it in the passages he quotes 1 Why does he 
slur it over, taking it for granted that it always 
means " an immortal soul? " The fact is, Mr. Lee 
dare not define, lest he be ensnared by his definition / 
He does well to keep in the dark, because the light 
would show up the monstrous deformity of his 
argument! 

1. Now, let us examine these passages. And, 
first, I affirm that the term "soul" in these texts 
means life, and nothing but life, which is an attribute 
of the body. Life is not an entity, or essence, but 
an attribute of the man. The * soul," or life, is not 
intelligent or conscious in, and of, itself. 

2. Hence Jesus said to his Apostles — "And fear 
not them who kill (murder,) the body, but are not 



Oy IMMORTALITY. 



75 



able to Mil the soul" The word here rendered " kill" 
is apoMeino, and signifies to kill, to put to death, to 
murder. It carries with it the idea of a violent death 
— of being executed, or put to death by violence. Of 
this the body may be the subject, but the soul, being 
an attribute, and not an entity, like the body, cannot. 
The murder of the body, or its execution, involves 
the suspension of the functions of life; but, as the 
soul, the life, " the breath of every living thing" is in 
the hands of God ; and especially as the soul, or life 
of the Christian " is hid with Christ in ^od," Christ 
says to his Disciples — "Fear not them who kill the 
body, but after that have no more that they can do.'* 

3. " But rather," says Christ, " fear him who is 
able to destroy both soul and body in heS" The 
word here translated " destroy" is not the same which 
is rendered "kill v in the preceeding part of the text. 
Here it is apolesai, from apollyo, which signifies to 
destroy, to perish, to render vain, to bring to nought. 
Now, when we apply these terms to the body, what 
do we understand by them % Do we not understand 
the total destruction, or bringing to nought, of the 
body 1 Well, here they are applied to both soul and 
body, and cannot mean less than when applied to 
the body only. 

4. " Fear him who is able to destroy," or bring to 
nought, " both soul and body in gehexna." 

The term Gehenna refers to the valley of Hinnom, 
south of Jerusalem, where the filth of the city, the 
dead bodies of animals and malefactors were con- 
sumed by fire. The reference, therefore, imports a 
final and utter destruction ; ^hich God only could 
inflict. 

How beautiful and forcible, then, is the language 
of Christ in view of the facts we have submitted : — 
" And fear not them " — your persecutors — <s who " 
murder " the body," or kill you — " but are not able 
to " murder " the soul ; " " but rather fear him who 
is able to " bring to nought " both soul and body in " 
gehenna — which is the " impending vengeance " 
hanging over sinners. 



76 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



And, in view of this fact, Christ further states — 
"He that findeth his soul," or preserves his life by 
rejecting me, "shall lose it" in gehenna : and he 
that loses his life for my sake" at the hands of his 
persecutors, " shall find it," by a resurrection from 
the dead. I have paraphrased this, in order to give 
the obvious sense of the passage. 

Having analyzed the paragraphs quoted, the reader 
will see, that Mr. Lee's construction of them is forced, 
inconsistent, and contradictory. Forced, because he 
fails to define his terms ; inconsistent, because the in- 
tegral parts of the passage, according to his view, 
cannot be made to harmonize ; contradictory, because 
his exposition is not in unison with collateral testi- 
mony. 

5. Mr. Lee's fifth proof of the consciousness of the 
dead, is Matt. xvii. 3. " And there appeared unto 
them Moses"&c. Mr. Lee thinks the resurrection of 
Moses a perfect assumption. I wish he may never 
be guilty of perpetrating a greater ! 

I grant the historian records the death of Moses, 
(though Josephus denies that he died;) and that no 
man knew of his sepulchre one year after ; and, also, 
that the Devil disputed about his body." But, in the 
text quoted, Moses and Elijah appear on the Mouni 
of transfiguration. Mr. Lee says he was not raised ; 
Mathew says he appeared on the Mount — not his 
soul— but the man, Moses, himself. It follows, there- 
fore, either, that Moses was raised from the dead, or 
that the whole affair was merely a "vision" in which 
absent things, or persons, were represented as being 
present. Daniel " saw one like the Son of Man 
coming in the clouds of heaven," and yet this was 
merely a vision whose reality is still future. If Mr. 
Lee had been in Jerusalem after the resurrection of 
Christ, and had seen those "many saints who came 
out of their graves," he w r ould, upon the same princi- 
ple, have denied their resurrection, and affirmed that 
he saw r their " immortal souls ! " The presence of a 
man I should always regard as incontestable proof of 



OX IMMORTALITY. 



77 



his having been raised from the dead, unless I was 
assured it was a mere vision. Not so, however, 
with Mr. Lee ! He would regard it as an " assump- 
tion ! " 

6. Mr. Lee's next proof of the consciousness of 
the dead, is based upon our Lord's conversation 
with the Sadducees. Matt. xxii. 31, 32. 

Notwithstanding all we have heretofore written 
upon this paragraph, we shall now examine it fully 
and impartially. 

Mr. Lee denies that the resurrection is the only 
point presented in the text refered to, but I shall not 
allow him to decide that question. The Apostle has 
set led it by the following: — ,s The same day came to 
him the Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrec- 
tion" &c. (verse 23.) Again, " therefore in the re- 
surrection, whose wife shall she be of the seven]" 
<fcc. Again, " for in the resurrection they neither 
marry," &e. (vs. 28 — -30.) The resurrection, then, 
and nothing but the resurrection, is the subject of 
discussion here, Mr. Lee's assertion to the contrary 
notwithstanding. 

The question between Christ and the Sadducees 
was a resurrection, or no resurrection. Christ af- 
firmed, and the Sadducees denied, And, as the Sad- 
ducees rejected the Prophets, he appeals to the Books 
of Moses, whose authority they regarded as divine. 
He makes the following points : 1st, " God is not the 
God of the dead" The Sadducees believed the dead 
would live no more, and, therefore, the Lord makes 
the first point to meet this objection — "God is not 
the God of the dead," who live no more, as you Sad- 
ducees believe. Jesus did not say that "God was 
not the God of the dead" in any other sense than 
that, in which the Sadducees held the doctrine ; 
which was in the sense of there being " no resurrec- 
tion" 

Mr. Lee labors to prove that these worthies are 
not dead — hence, he says — " they must be living." 
What a strange doctrine that must be, which sub- 



78 



SCRIPTTBAL ARGUMENTS 



verts the Christian's hope, and stultifies the meaning 
of language I 

Now, I affirm that " Abraham, Isaac and Jacob 
are dead," unconscious and profoundly asleep in the 
dust. But they are not dead in the sense of the 
Sadducees, i. e,. to live no more. We have the record 
of the death of these saints in the Old Testament, 
and Paul says— *' these all died in faith, not having 
received the promises." They are dead y then, and, 
according to Mr. Lee 1 s theory, never can be raised f 
This is modem Sadduceeism ! 

Mr. Lee's doctrine of consciousness in ffarih is based 
upon a rotten assumption, viz : that a kah mult bb 

DEAD AND ALIVE AT THE SiXE TIME. This IS JUS! a5 

absurd as to say, a man may be in heaven, and m the 
grave rotten, at the same instant i I know not by what 
terms to designate this vain and foolish philosophy ! 
it is so absurd, so baseless, so irrational, illogical and 
unphiloscphical, that it denes language to describe it I 
Let it pass, then, a thing of nought ! 

Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, iv. IT, thus 
writes "As it is written, I have made thee (Abraham) 
a father of many nations before him whom he be- 
lieved, even Go» who reyiveth the dead, and 

CALLETH THOSE THINGS {OT persons) WHICH ARE NOT, OS 

though they were" It is in this sense, Mr. Lee, thai 
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are living I and only in 
this sense : and, therefore, "God is the God of Abra- 
ham,"' <k c.- 
Mr. Lee's doctrine is this — no eonscieusncss in the 
intermediate state, no resurrection. His language is — 
M There can be no resurrection, unless the soul main 
tains its conscious existence during the interim/' <5cc. 
Let the reader mark and remember this. 

But, in opposition to the above, I state the position, 
that, if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are not dead, they can 
never be raised. This the word itself will prove. 
Axastasis. a rising up, to live ogam, reamer Ufi 
It is a -Rz-living — a upstanding, and can only be ap- 
plied to those who were dead. The living are not the 



Oy IMMORTALITY. 



79 



subject of a resurrection. It is not a coming-down, 
but an up-rising. Mr. Lee's view renders the resur- 
rection an impossibility. The dead, if unconscious, 
he says, never can be raised ; and I affirm that, the 
living are not raised ; and, therefore there is no resur- 
rection. 

The resurrection of the dead saints, and the change 
of the living saints, is, however, clearly taught in the 
Bible. And all that Mr. Lee says on this point is 
prompted by his strong desire to maintain his theory. 
Mr. Lee's whole reasoning tends to the point of no re- 
surrection. His objections are those which Infidels 
have made before him, and which, on his part, show a 
great wani of faith. He reasons, that as the particle? 
of the body "may have floated in the clouds, flowed 
from the fountain, run in the stream, and mingled 
with the Ocean," there can be no resurrection! 
This whole paragraph is rank infidelity ! I say, all I 
have quoted, and avast deal more, is infidelity with- 
out a veill This may be thought harsh, but the case 
calls for a prompt rebuke, and, by the grace of God, I 
will expose this skepticism in the light of God's truth, 
And, 1st Job's testimony is against Mr. Lee. 

In the 14th chapter, 10 — 15, he says — -''But man 
dieth, and wasteth away ; yes, man yieldeth his breath, 
and where is he 1 As the waters fail from the sea, 
and the flood decayeth and drieth up : So man lieth 
down, and riseth not, till the heavens be no more, 
they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep. 
O that thou wouldst hide me in the grave that thou 
wouldst keep me secret, until thy wrath is past, thai 
thou wouldst appoint me a set time, and remember me. 
If a man dieth, shall he live again ? all the days of my 
appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Thou 
shall call and I will answer thee 1 thou wilt have a 
desire to the work of thy hands.''' 

Here Job teaches that the "man dies," that he 
" lieth down " and shall not " awake, nor be raised out 
of his sleep," till the heavens be no more. He prays 
to be hid "in the grave " till a " set time," when he 



80 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



desired to be remembered." He asks the question — 
"If a man die shall he live again \" And says he would 
wait his " appointed time, till his change" or resur- 
rection, "come." And affirms that then God would 
"call," and he would " answer;" that He would then 
"have a desire to the icdrk of his hands." Again, he 
speaks of "resting in the dust." Again, he says — 
" For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he 
will stand at the latter day upon the earth. And 
though, after my skin, worms destroy this body, yet 
in my flesh shall I see God." 

From this testimony we learn that the man dies, 
and that the man is raised. And Job, unlike Mr. 
Lee, and all others of his school, believed that, after 
the " worms destroyed" or devoured, " his body, yet in 
his" immortal "flesh," made alive from the dead, 
"he should see God." 

2. The testimon y of Isaiah is against Mr. Lee. 
Isaiah xxvi. 19. * Thy dead men shall live, together 

with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, 
ye that dwell in DrsT ; for thy dew is as the dew 
of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead." 

This requires no comment; it clearly proves that 
the body interred will be raised. 

3. The evidence of Daniel is opposed to Mr. Lee. 
Daniel xii. 2. " And many of them that sleep in 

the DUST OF THE earth shall awake," &c. 

4. Jesus testifies against him. 

" I will raise him up at the last day." John vi. 

5. Paul's testimony is against Mr. Lee. 

Rom. viii. 11. "But if the spirit of him that raised 
Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised 
Christ from the dead will also q.uickex your xortal 
bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you." The 
body that dies is quickened, or made alive. Again, 
" Who will change our vile bodies, that they may be 
fashioned like to his glorious body." Phil. iii. 21. 
(see chap. xv. 1 Cor.) 

6. The resurrection of Christ testifies against Mr. 
Lee. 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



81 



Jesus was "brought again from the dead" his 
" soul was not left in the grave." " I am he that 
liveth, and was dead, and, behold ! I am alive forever 
more." He is the first fruits of them that slept" — 
* the first born from the dead" — not the living. His 
resurrection is the model — the pattern of the saints. 
If he had brought up any body, other than the one 
buried, it would have been no resurrection at all 1 
And, according to Mr. Lee, the disciples, or, indeed, 
the soldiers, might have stolen his body away, with- 
out invalidating his resurrection ! 

Mr. Lee "greatly errs, not knowing the Scriptures 
nor the power of God." 

The resurrection, then, does not depend upon the 
possession of an "immortal soul," in which resides 
Mr. Lee's fancied personal identity. So far from it, 
his view is directly opposed to any resurrection, 
nullifies the gospel of the Son of God, and fosters the 
blackest infidelity ! an infidelity that scruples not to 
assume the robes of an " angel of light." The true 
state of the question, then, is this : 

God is not the God of the dead, who rise not; 

But Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will rise ; 

Ergo : God is the God of Abraham, &c. 

Mr. Lee's "facts," then, have nothing to do with 
the great fact proved by the testimony submitted. 
And, I care not if the body pass through a thousand 
changes, God's word stands pledged for its resurreo 
tion ; and no man, unless to sustain a theory, or he 
be a skeptic in relation to God's word will dispute it. 
Mr. Lee evidently maintains the position, that the body 
which dies will not be raised, which is tantamount 
to no resurrection at all. In opposition to this athe- 
istical view, I have proved it will be the same body in 
fact, changed from an earthly to a heavenly- — from an 
animal to a spiritual nature. Those raised from the 
dead "neither marry nor are given in marriage, 5 ' 
which argues a change in the conformation of the 
body, and, therefore, "in the resurrection," are 
"neither male nor female, but one in Christ." It 



82 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



was this glorious faith which prompted Joseph " to 
give commandment concerning his bones" — a com- 
mandment which Mr. Lee's reasoning would have 
prompted him to disregard. But space will not 
allow me to follow this argument further; I will 
therefore leave it for the next. 

7. Mr. Lee's seventh argument is founded on the 
Parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Luke xvi. 22, 
23. One would have thought, after all that has been 
said and written on this portion of God's word, that 
no author would again refer to it in proof of the 
consciousness of the dead; but in this we are 
mistaken. 

Without following Mr. Lee, I shall proceed to 
give, in as brief a manner as possible, the meaning 
of the paragraph. And, 

1. I regard it as a parable, and not an history. 

2. It is not designed to represent the condition of 
men between death and the resurrection. 

3. It does not represent physical death at all. 

4. The symbols used are not expressive of the 
state of the dead, as held by our opponents. 

There are two classes of persons represented here 
by the rich man and Lazarus, viz : Jews and Gentiles. 
Their politico-ecclesiastical and social conditions are 
described as follows : The rich man — the Jew — is 
represented as being "clothed in purple and fine 
linen, and faring sumptuously every day." He was 
"rich." This I regard as a true and graphic de- 
scription of the Jew. 

On the other hand " there was a certain beggar 
named Lazarus " — representing the Gentiles, " who 
was laid at his gate, fu]l of sores, and desiring to be 
fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's 
table." 

But the haughty Jew, who regarded the Gentiles as 
dogs, refused even these. He is therefore repre- 
sented as dying, and being carried to Abraham's 
bosom by angels. An excellent illustration of the 
fact, that when the gospel was rejected by the Jews, 



OX IMMORTALITY. 



83 



and they were consequently broken off, the Gentiles 
were grafted in to the good olive, and made par- 
takers of its fatness ; and so became children of 
Abraham by faith, and heirs of the promises made to 
him. The poor man is said to die in order to main- 
tain the decorum of the parable ; hence, it is imme- 
diately added — " The rich man also died and was 
buried — the Jew died and was buried politically 
and ecclesiastically, as well as socially; " and in 
hell — hades — he lifted up his eyes, being in torments" 
as their history for the last 1800 years fully proves, 
"and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his 
bosom." In this political "torment" he cries to 
Abraham for help — for mercy— for water to cool his 
tongue, "for I am tormented in this flame.' 1 But 
Abraham is represented as replying — " Son, remem- 
ber that thou in thy life-time" — in thy dispensation 
— " receivedst thy good things," which were all 
abused ; " and likewise Lazarus evil things," being 
in "the valley and shadow of death" politically and 
ecclesiastically ; " but now he is comforted " by the 
gospel, " and thou art tormented " by thy persecutors. 
" And besides all this, between us and you there is a 
great gulf fixed" — the decree of God for their un- 
belief — " so that they who would pass from hence to 
you," to aid you ecclesiastically, &e., "cannot; 
neither can they" — any of you — "pass to us that 
would come from thence," for God has decreed you 
shall not, "until the times of the Gentiles be ful- 
filled." Then the rich man — the Jew, is represented 
as supplicating for the "remnant of Israel the 
five brethren " — "lest they also come into this place 
of torment," and share the same fate. Abraham 
I gives him to understand, that " they have Moses and 
the prophets ; let them hear them." The rich man 
replies — " No, father Abraham : but if one shall go 
to them from the dead, they will repent." Abraham 
responds — " If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, 
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose 
from the dead," which was fully verified in the 



Si 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



case of Christ, whom the Jews rejected both befoie 
and after he rose from the dead. 

Such, I apprehend, is the simple meaning of the 
parable. The word Hades, in which the rich man is 
represented as being tormented, is not used as indi- 
cative of future punishment any where in the Bible. 
It is used, however, to express a low or abased 
condition ; and such is the analogical meaning of 
the word. 

Having made these observations upon the article 
before me, I shall conclude by remarking, that Mr. 
Lee, and all others on his side of the question ; and 
not a few on our side, have made sad havoc of this 
beautiful parable, which is such an admirable illus- 
tration of the condition of the Jewish world. 



CHAPTER XII. 

(The intermediate state, continued.) 
In Mr. Lee's article, "No 15," he bases an argu- 
ment, in favor of the consciousness of the dead, on 
Luke xxiii. 42 — 43, and 46. The things to be ex- 
amined in these passages are these : 

1. The thief s request — " Lord, remember me when 
thou comest into thy Kingdom." 

2. Our Lord's answer — " To day shalt thou be with 
me in Paradise." 

3. Christ commending his "spirit" to God. 

4. His giving up the "ghost." 

We may remark, on the first point, that the thief 
desired to be remembered at a particular time which 
he specifies, viz ; " when thou comest into thy King* 
dom." 

The Lord has not even yet come into his kingdom, 
and consequently, the thief's desire has not been 
realized. Christ's kingdom will be on earth — his 
throne in Jerusalem, and his dominion fill the world ! 
When he "comes into this kingdom," he will "come 
on the clouds of heaven," and the righteous dead will 



IMMORTALITY. 



85 



be raised to share the kingdom with him. The thief 
will then be with him, and realize his request. 

On the second point, I will observe that, the Lord's 
answer is in perfect harmony with the thiefs request 
— "To day shalt thou be with me in Paradise" 
which is the " kingdom" referred to by the thief. 

The word Paradeisos, a Persian word adopted into 
the Hebrew, and used by the " Seventy," in the Sep- 
tuagint Greek of the Old Testament, to signify a park, 
a forest, a garden of trees of various kinds, a delight- 
ful grove, the garden of Eden. This word is never 
used to express the state or condition of the dead; 
neither is it the place of dead ?nen , s " gh-ostsl" Paul was 
"caught away to" or had " a vision" of " Paradise 
and in Rev. ii. 7., the Lord says — " to him that over- 
cometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is 
in the midst of the Paradise of God." (See, also, Rev. 
xxii.) The terms " kingdom" and " Paradise" fix the 
meaning of the whole passage. The phrase " to day" 
or " this day" must therefore be referred to the " day" 
of Christ's " coming into his kingdom." The Lord's 
answer is equivalent to his having said — " I will re- 
member you at the 4 day/ time, or period of which 
you speak. " The term " day" often refers to a time, 
or period, and not to a literal day. "Thou art to 
pass over Jordan this day." Deut. xi. 1. And yet 
they did not pass that day. In Gen. ii. 4. 11, " In the 
day (time or period) when God made the heavens 
and the earth." "To-day if you will hear his voice," 
&c. " Now is the day of salvation," &c, Heb iii. 16. 
This day of salvation has lasted 1S00 years ! 

Mr. Lee contends that Paradise means "heaven" 
above. In this he is utterly wrong ; but, suppose, for 
the sake of argument, we grant it and then what 
follows ? why it follows that Jesus Christ did not go 
there; for he says to Mary after his resurrection — 
"Touch me not: for I have not yet ascended to my 
Father" &c. 

Thus Mr. Lee subverts his own hypothesis 

Christ commended his "spirit" to his Father, and 
8 



86 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



gave up the " ghost." The word Pneuma, here ren- 
dered " spirit " signifies, when used in reference to 
man, the breath, or life, &c, and the word ekpneo, 
compounded of ek, out, and pneo, to breathe, and 
literally means to breathe out; so that the passage 
literally runs thus: — "Father, into thy hands I com- 
mend my life; and having said this, he breathed it 
out,''' expired, or died. 

Mr. Lee says — " Christ's soul, or ghost, which he 
commended into the hands of his Father ani gave 
up, did not die with the body, and hence it was with 
it that the thief had the promise of being in para- 
dise." While Mr. Lee was writing the above, he 
must have forgot that " Christ's soul was poured out 
unto death " — that " it was made an offering for 
sin," and that in reference to it, it is said — "thou 
wilt not leave my soul in the grave !" Mr. Lee 
believes the "soul" goes "to heaven at death," and, 
therefore, he comes under the condemnation of 
Justin Martyr, as well as the Bible. 

Mr. Lee also refers to Acts vii. 59, where Stephen 
says — " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." This belongs 
to the class of texts already examined. This phrase- 
ology occurs in Job xxxii. 8. Peter, also, refers to 
the same when he exhorts those, who " suffer accord- 
ing to the will of God, to commit the keeping of their 
souls to God." Mr. Lee refers to Mr. Grew's view 
of this text, and thinks his rendering "a violation of 
common sense." As Mr. Lee's "common sense" is 
not mine, I fully endorse Mr. Grew's " that the life " 
is not "a distinct substance, susceptible of con- 
sciousness without the material organization." Life, 
being an attribute, and not an entity, as Mr. Lee^ 
supposes, can have no consciousness apart from the 
man of whom it is an attribute. 

2. The argument on Rom. viii. 35, 38, 39, is not at 
all relevant to the subject. There is no point what- 
ever in Mr. Lee's comments on the passage. Of 
course nothing but sin can "separate " the Christian 
from "the love of Christ;" his being "asleep in the 



OX IMMORTALITY. 



87 



dust of the earth" does not intercept the love Christ 
has for him; and, consequently, in proof of his great 
and abiding love for him, he " raises him up at the 
last day," 

What Mr. Lee says on this text may serve to fill 
up his book, but the intelligent reader will fail to 
find any proof of his position, or relevancy to the 
question in hand. 

Mr. Lee remarks — that " to be the object of the 
love of God involves conscious existence;" if so, 
what " world" was that which " God so loved" that 
he gave his Son for it] I opine, thousands of per- 
sons, for whom Christ died, and whom God loved 
prospectively, had no "conscious existence " at that 
time. Mr. Lee is the most- incautious author I have 
ever read. 

3. The argument founded on 2 Cor. v. 1 — 8, has 
been answered several times before, but Mr Lee 
makes it a rule "not to know an argument" on the 
opposite side. Let us examine the text: "For we 
know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle 
were dissolved, we have a building of God; a house 
not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." This 
verse stands connected with the last verse of the 
preceding chapter, where Paul contrasts "things 
seen and unseen, things temporal and eternal." And 
then, speaking of those "temporal" things, which 
constitute our "earthly house of dwelling" he says, 
" if this dwelling were dissolved" as Peter taught ir 
would be, " we have a building of God, a house not 
made with hands, eternal in the heavens." Not in 
" heaven " above, as Mr Lee imagines; but " in the 
new heavens and earth" — a city whose builder and 
maker is God ;" for which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob 
looked, as well as all those worthies enumerated by 
Paul. "For in this" dwelling place "we groan, 
earnestly desiring to be clothed" or invested, " with 
our house," or building, "which is from heaven : if 
so be that being clothed," invested, " we shall not be 



88, 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



found naked," or destitute. " For we that are in 
this tabernacle," or dwelling place, "do groan, being 
burdened: not because we would be unclothed," 
naked or destitute, "but clothed," or invested with an 
"eternal" dwelling place, " a building of God — not 
made with human " hands " — " that mortality might 
be swallowed up by life."'' 

In Rom. viii. 22, 23, Paul speaks of this "groan- 
ing" and waiting for the adoption — the redemption, 
or resurrection " of the body." Now Paul did not 
wish to be "unclothed," naked, or destitute; but he 
desired to be invested with that " tabernacle," or 
dwelling place, into which he would be introduced 
when "mortality is swallowed up by life." 

"Now," says he, "he that hath wrought us for 
this same thing," a resurrection to life, "is God, who 
also hath given to us the earnest of the spirit." 
"Therefore," because we have the "earnest of the 
spirit," we are always confident, or full of confidence ; 
knowing that, while we are at home in the "mortal" 
body, we are absent from the Lord : (for we walk by 
faith, not by sight.) We are confident, I say, and 
willing rather to be absent from the " mortal " body, 
in the sense of having it " swallowed up by life," 
"and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we 
labour, that whether present" with the Lord, "or 
absent" from him, "we may be accepted by him," 
when he shall come. " For we must all appear 
before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one 
may receive the things in body, according to w r hat 
he hath done, whether good or bad." Such is the 
meaning of the whole paragraph, I conceive, accord- 
ing to the text and context. 

The Apostle did not desire to die; this is not the 
subject before him ; neither did he desire to be 
without a tabernacle, or dwelling place ; but he 
earnestly desired to be "clothed," and this he ex- 
plains by "mortality being swallowed up by life." 
" Mortality " is not " sw r allowed up by life " at death ; 
but, rather, life is swallowed up by mortality. The 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



89 



whole structure of the passage is incompatible with 
Mr. Lee's view; nor can he harmonize it, according 
to his theory, with other parts of God's word; nor, 
indeed, with itself. Mr. Lee has wrested it from its 
connexion, and pressed it into his service. His 
doctrine is not in it, nor can he prove it legitimately 
by it. 

4. Mr. Lee's next argument is based on 2 Cor. xii. 
2 — 4. "X knew a man in Christ," &c. (see the pas- 
sage.) His first deduction from this, is, " the body 
and mind are two distinct things." I wonder how 
often Mr. Lee will repeat this. The mind and 
body, Mr. Lee, are not the same ; but for you thence 
to infer that either the one or the other can be con- 
scious separately, shocks all common sense ! 

The only real point of discussion in this text, is 
involved in the phrase — " Whether in the body, I 
cannot tell ; or whether out of the body, I cannot 
tell." Mr. Lee, and all others, on his side of this 
question, supposes this text to prove the possibility 
of a man's being out of his body in a literal sense. 
But, I apprehend, Paul designed to make no such 
impression, because, to interpret the passage literally 
would be equivalent to saying a man could be out of 
himself, which is an absurdity. I understand the 
apostle simply to say, that he did not know whether, 
in his "vision" he was bodily caught away, or simply 
transported in mind, and thus mentally wrapt in 
" visions and revelations " of the future. And one 
thing is certain, if Paul's case was as Mr. Lee has 
represented it, Paul's body was dead, and he must 
have been raised from the dead after his "vision" 
ceased ! Mr. Lee stumbles at the idea of Moses 
being raised from the dead ; but, I opine, he will have 
to take the position that Paul was, if his doctrine be 
true! Having examined this passage fully before ; 
we merely make the above remarks on it, that we 
may not seem to omit any thing said by Mr. Lee. 

5. Mr. Lee refers to Eph. i. 10, in proof of his 
position. He misunderstands, and misapplies this 

8* 



90 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



text. The "dispensation of the fulness of time" is 
doubtless the age to come, when Christ will be the 
head of all political and ecclesiastical power on earth. 
Men will then be united, or " collected, in one " vast 
empire, so that the " things in the heavens " — poli- 
tical, "and on the earth," will be "under Christ." 
This text knows nothing of Mr. Lee's subject. 

6. He also quotes chap. iii. 15, "of whom the 
whole family in heaven and earth is named." The 
being refered to here is the " Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ." The "family" spoken of, is the I 
"family" of the "Father;" and the text seems to 1 
indicate that the whole intelligent creation is referred 
to; but, whether this be true or not, it can mean no 
more than that, the angels in heaven and saints on 
earth constitute one great fa mily." 

7th. His seventh argument is based on Phil. i. 21 
— 24 : and here he merely reiterates what has been 
said a hundred times before ; and said too much 
better than he has said it. In reply to this argument, 
I shall repeat what I have before written, and which 
Mr. Lee has failed to refute, that Paul points the 
Philippians to "the day of Christ" as the time of 
their reward ; and it would be preposterous to sup- 
pose he expected to meet with his before them. His 
address to Timothy is proof of this. Paul is not 
discussing his own fate, except so far as, Christ and 
his Gospel were involved. He says all his afflictions, 
bonds and imprisonments had furthered the Gospel, 
instead of retarding its progress. And in reference 
to this he makes one bold and unmistakeable declar- 
ation, that " Christ will be magnified ih my body, 
whether by life or by death 1 '' — it mattered not, — this 
would be the result. Having thus driven the nail, he 
1 clinches it by saying, " For me to live, is christ," — 
it will redound to his glory, for " I am set for the 
defence of the gospel;" "and to die," in such a 
cause, and for Christ's sake, "is gain ; " not to me, 
Paul, but to Christ; for otherwise how could " Christ 
be magnified in my body by death?" The reader 



oy IMMORTAMTY. 



will please note the fact, that it was " nr body," and 
not out of if, nor in the "spirit world," that Christ 
was to be magnified* "But," says Paul, " if I live 
in the fiesh. this is the fruit of my labour; yet v:hat 
I shall choose I hnoiv not." Why did he not know 
what to choose? For," or because, "I am in a 
strait betwixt two." What u two " things were these, 
between which he was in a strait? Were they life 
and death? Then, according to this view, he did 
not know which to "choose," life or death. While 
in this strait, therefore, what choice did he make ? 
Did he choose life ] Did he make choice of death ] 
Xo ; for between these he could make no selection ; 
but there was a third point in reference to which he 
could, and did make a choice ; and that was the re- 
turning and being with Christ" which was far better 
than life or death. 

Mr. Lee says — " His (Paul's) choice was between 
dying then and being with Christ, and living longer 
to serve the Church," &c. This is the point of his 
argument, and it is a pure assumption, as a faithful 
exegesis of the passage will show; and, as we think, 
we have already shown. That Paul expected to ;< be 
with Christ," in death, is not so much as hinted at in 
the whole paragraph. It was not a lt departure" that 
Paul desired, but a returxixg and beix& with 
christ, a point totally distinct from either dying pr 
living in the present state. 

8th. Mr. Lee's eighth proof is Rev. vi. 9, where 
John "Saw under the altar the souls of th c m that 
were slain fur the word of God," &c. Upon this 
text I shall not dwell, for it must be obvious ro every 
intelligent reader of the Scriptures, that John gives 
a symbolical description of what he saw; and that he 
speaks of things which had no real existence when 
he saw them ; and, therefore, that they were merely 
images, or symbols, representing other things. That 
John should see the " souls " of the martyrs under 
the altar, and that those 4, eonlb" should be repre- 
sented as " crying with a loud voice," is all in per- 



92 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



feet harmony with the whole subject. The blood of 
Abel cried from the ground ; and the blood of Christ 
is said " to speak better things than the blood of 
Abel ;" and, in perfect harmony with the nature and 
decorum of the figure, the blood or souls of the saints, 
slain for the word of God, is represented as being 
"under the altar," upon which we may suppose they 
were sacrificed. 

Thus we hare followed Mr. Lee through all his 
proofs of the consciousness of the dead ; and, having 
done so, I will now offer some direct proofs that the 
dead know nothing. And, 

1st. Apirt from the fact, that there is no promise 
of rewards or punishments to the dead, the following 
testimonies clearly sustain the position, that they are 
unconscious. Job asks — " Why died I not from the 
womb 1 Why did not I expire at the time of my 
birth] Why did the knees receive me? Or why the 
breasrthat I should be nursed] For now should I 
have been still, and been quiet — / should have slept : 
then had I been at rest, with kings and counsellors 
of the earth, who built desolate places for them- 
selves ; or wi h princes that ^ai gold, who filled their 
houses with silver: or as a hidden untimely birth / 
had not been : as infants which never saw light." 
Job iii. 11, 12, &c. 

This pa^s ige clearly proves the dead unconscious. 
They sleep: th^y rest in the dust: they are as though 
they had not been, even as infants who never saw light. 

Asain, ''As the cloud is consumed, and vanisheth 
away, so he that goeth dowx to the grave, shall come 
up no more," &c. chap. vii. 9. Hefe we are taught 
that he," the man, " goes down to the grave," and 
comes up no more till the resurrection ; but Mr. Lee 
says the man goes to heaven ! 

n Why ha^t thou brought me forth from the womb! 
O that I had expired, and no eye had seen me; I 
should have been as though I had not been. I should 
have been carried from the womb to the grave. Are 
not my days few 1 . Cease then and let me alone, 



ON IMMORTALITY, 



93 



that I may take comfort a little, before I go whence 1 
shall not return, even to the land of darkness, and 
the shades of death; a land of darkness as 
DARKNESS ITSELF ; and the shades of death, with- 
out any order, and where the light is as darkness." 
chap. x. 18 — 22. Reader, behold the contrast! Mr. 
Lee says the saint when he dies goes to heaven — to 
the " spirit world ;" but Job teaches otherwise ; he tells 
us they go to the " land of darkness — to the shades of 
death — a land of darkness as darkness itself, where 
there is no order, and where the light is as darkness" 
Is this Heaven, Mr. Lee ] 

" But man dieth, and wasteth away ; yea, man yield- 
eth up his breath, and where is he ?" Mr. Lee says, 
in Heaven or in Hell ; but what says Job ] " As the 
waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and 
drieth up ; So man lieth down, and riseth not : till 
the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be 
raised out of their sleep. O that thou wouldst 
hide me in the grave" Mr. Lee would say — " O that 
thou wouldst hide me in Heaven !" " That thou 
wouldst keep me secret, until thy wrath is passed, 
that thou wouldst appoint me a set time, and remem- 
ber me. If a man die, shall he live again ?" Hold! 
says Mr. Lee, man does not die — his body merely 
dies, but his soul goes to heaven ; and the soul will 
never have that body again, for before the resurrec- 
tion it will have passed through a thousand changes, 
and have entered into the organization of other sub- 
stances — trees, animals, water, dust, wind ! Its re- 
surrection is impossible! But, says Job — "All the 
days of my appointed time will I wait till my change 
come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee ; thou 
wilt have a desire to the work of thy hands." chap. xiv. 
10 — 15. No, says Mr. Lee, God will have no " desire 
to the work of his hands"— -the body is gone — 
crumbled into dust, so that God, Himself, cannot 
raise it ! 

"If I wait, the grave is my house ; I have made my 
bed in darkness" No, says Mr. Lee, Heaven is my 



94 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



* house," and, instead of a "bed of darkness" I wing 
my flight to the regions of light and glory ! 

Job continues — I have said to corruption, Thou 
art my father; to the worm, Thou art my mother and 
my sister." But what would Mr. Lee say 1 I am 
immortal; " corruption is not my father;" neither is 
"the worm my mother nor sister." But let us hear 
Job again — "And where now is my hope 1 As for 
my hope, who will see it ?- They shall go down to the 
pit, when our rest is together in the dust, chap, xviii. 
13 — 16. When Job died, he expected to find his "rest 
in the dust," but Mr. Lee expects to find his in a 
place which he calls " the spirit world" 

David asks — " wilt thou show wonders to the dead.? 
Shall the dead arise, and praise thee 1 Shall thy loving- 
kindness be declared in the grave? Or thy faithful- 
ness in destruction ? Shall thy wonders be known in 
the dark? — and thy righteousness in the land of for- 
getfalness P" Ps. lxxxviii. 10 — 12. Here we learn, 
that for the dead to praise the Lord, they must arise; 
that the state of the dead is one of "destruction, dis- 
organization, or corruption; that their abode is 

* dark, 1 and that they dwell in a land of forgetfulness" 
How strongly, again, does this contrast with Mr. 
Lee's theory! But let us proceed. 

" The dead praise not the Lord, neither ANY 

THAT GO DOWN INTO SILENCE." Ps. CXV. 17. 

Here is a text which sweeps Mr. Lee's theory from 
the face of day ! He cannot make it harmonize with 
it, by all the logic he can command. It will deft 
all his mental powers, and withstand all his sophis 
try. The Spirit of the Living God says by the moutlr 
of David, "the dead praise not the Lord." But Mr 
Lee, and his pious associates in the advocacy of 
pagan superstition and infidelity, declare that "the 
dead" do praise the Lord — and that they are with 
Him! But, as if the above was not enough; and 
lest there might be some skeptic on the subject, like 
Mr. Lee, the Holy Spirit adds this sweeping clause — 
" neither ant that go down into silence" 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



95 



Again, "For the living know that they shall die ■ 
hut the dead know not any thing, neither have they 
any more a reward; for the memory of them is 
forgotten." 

Here we are taught that the dead know nothing ; 
but what says Mr. Lee 1 He tells us the dead know 
a vast deal — that they are in Heaven, receiving a 
'•reward." "Also, their love, and their hatred, and 
their envy hath now perished" &c. Say you, that 
such a person is conscious I But more still — kl What- 
ever thy hand findeth to do, do it with all thy might; 
for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor 
wisdom, in the grave — sheol, whither thou goest." 
Eccl. ix. 5, 6, 10. The state, then, into which men pass 
at death, is one where there is no love, no envy, 
no hatred, no work, no device, no knowledge, nor 
wisdom. 

Once more : Put not your trust in princes, nor in 
the son of man, in whom there is no help. His 
breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth ,- in that 
very day his thoughts perish." Ps. cxlvi. 4. 

I feel satisfied to leave this question just here. 
The view we have taken is the only one which 
harmonizes with the teachings of the Scriptures ; 
while it is impossible for opponents to explain the 
proofs we have submitted, and make them accord 
with their Platonic speculations. 

CHAPTER X III. 

The Destiny of the Wicked. 

Havixg reviewed Mr. Lee's articles on " the im- 
mortality of the soul," and "the consciousness of 
the dead." I shall now proceed to the examination 
of the subject of future punishment. 

In Mr. Lee ? s article (Xo. 16.) now before us. he 
sets out to prove, that "the wicked will not be annihi- 
lated, or cease to exist, at, nor subsequently to, the 
general resurrection" His first argument is "founded 



96 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



upon the immateriality of the soul, and its conscious 
existence between death and the resurrection" 

Mr. Lee says, — "If these two points have not been 
proved, we have no hope of sustaining the present 
proposition, upon the principle that nothing can be 
proved," &c. Of course the whole value of Mr 
Lee's present argumer.t, which in fact is only an 
inference drawn from false premises, depends upon, 
1st, whether he has proved the "immateriality of 
the soul;" or, 2d, the "consciousness of the dead." 
These points he claims to have proved; we deny it, 
however, and his inference goes along with that 
denial, for, to argue his inference, would be to go 
back and argue those points over again. This we 
are not disposed to do, and shall therefore proceed 
at once to file an objection to Mr. Lee's leading 
proposition. 

He uses the term "annihilation" as expressive of 
the view wmich we advocate, in reference to the 
punishment of the wicked. We repudiate the term 
as unscriptural, and as not expressive of our idea 
of punishment. Annihilate, ad and nihilum, signifies 
to reduce to nothing. This is not the sense in which 
we speak of the destruction of the wicked. To 
destroy — destrtjo — to unbuild — to ruin, to lay waste 
— to make desolate — is the word which we generally 
use to express the sentiment. 

But, without making further remarks upon the 
proposition before us, let us proceed to Mr. Lee's 
arguments, and review them. 

Mr. Lee (Article No. 17,) first inquires into "the 
penalty of the law," without defining what law he 
means. This point, therefore, we must take for 
granted. He cannot mean the law under which 
Adam was placed, for this, accord, ns to his theory, 
would make "eternal torments" the penalty of 
Adam's sin; from which position, I apprehend, Mr. 
Lee himself would revolt. Neither can he mean the 
Law of Ten Commandments, given to Israel on 
Mount Sinai. I conclude, then, that he means the 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



97 



Gospel — the Law of Liberty; but, for the sake of his 
argument, he should have been more explicit. In 
the absence, however, of such explicitness, I shall 
meet the question in its most extended sense. 

Mr. Lee says the punishment, or penalty, of the law 
must be one of the following things . 

"First, annihilation without conscious suffering; 
or, 2d, it must be conscious suffering and annihila 
tion combined, consist in both ; or, 3d, it must be 
conscious suffering without annihilation." Mr. Lee 
adds — "It will not be denied that the penalty of the 
law must be found in one or the other of these 
propositions." Notwithstanding Mr. Lee's assertion, 
I deny that the penalty of God's law is expressed in 
either proposition. 

Mr. Lee's mind must be barren of language and 
ideas, judging from his selection of terms. The 
Bible alone furnishes varied phraseology in reference 
to this point. It is strange he could not find a single 
scriptural term by which to express the penalty of 
the divine law ! 

I proceed to remark upon the penalty of the primi- 
tive law, under which Adam was placed. 

The penalty of the original law was not moral 
death, for this is but a state of sin, and no punishment 
at all. Neither was it " eternal torments," for the 
language used to express the penalty excludes the 
idea. It follows, therefore, that it was death — 
physical, animal, or organic death ; a death em- 
bracing a process which is expressed by the words — 
hi dying thou shalt die" And "dust thou art, and 
into dust shalt thou return." This is the law of 
death, under which the whole human race is born. 
The operation of this law brings man to the dust, 
and leaves him there, with no possibility of escape, 
except by Christ. The penalty of the original 
law, therefore, was not "annihilation'' 1 with, or with- 
out "conscious suffering;" but simply death— the 
cessation of life — the extinction of consciousness. 

Having made these brief remarks on the penalty 
9 



98 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



of the original law, and its operation, upon the race, 
I shall glance at the law of Ten Commandments, as 
given to Israel on Mount Sinai. 

The blessings and penalties of the law of Moses, 
were national. If they refused to keep His laws, He 
said He would "appoint over" them "terror, con- 
sumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume 
the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall 
sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it." 
Lev. xxvi. 16. God also threatened them with dis- 
persion and captivity among the nations of the earth, 
(see the whole chapter.) All this was national pun- 
ishment. So far as personal punishment is con- 
cerned, Ezekiel and Paul both testify it was death, 
" The soul that sins, it shall die." " He that sinned 
under Moses r law, died without mercy." 

We now come to the main question, viz : What is 
the penalty of the divine law, in relation to the future 
destiny of the wicked ? 

Mr. Lee maintains it is "eternal misery," or 
"torment;" and insists upon it, that destruction 
admits of no degrees. As it respects the doctrine of 
" degrees in punishment" so far as the final destiny 
of sinners is concerned, I apprehend it is a fallacy 
The punishment is death. That may be preceded or 
attended with more or less anguish and suffering. 
One mode of inflicting death, among the Romans, 
was by crucifixion. That was preceded by scourg- 
ing — few or many stripes, according to the nature 
of the crime. Our Lord himself was scourged 
prior to his death. To this practice reference is 
made in speaking of retribution ; but not to the 
exclusion of death, that followed it. For some crimes 
more, and for others fewer stripes were inflicted, but 
the " end is death :" Rom. vi. 21. Rewards and punish- 
ments are always spoken of in reference to character 
— and character is expressed more than once by the 
terms, "good and evil " the one standing related to 
^eternal life" and the other to " death : " for " the 



ON I3OI0RTAL1ITY. 



99 



wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal 
life, through Jesus Christ our Lord." Upon this 
point, however, I cannot enlarge, and will therefore, 
pass on to the consideration of Mr. Lee's proofs. 

Punishment is always national, social* or personal ; 
but Mr. Lee makes no distinction at all. He quotes 
text after text and applies them to future punishment, 
without ever stopping to enquire whether the punish^ 
ment be national or personal. And, consequently, 
every text he quotes is misapplied, In Matt. xxv. 
30, — " and cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer 
darkness : there shall be weeping and gnashing of 
teeth "—the punishment is upon the Jewish nation, 
and is national and personal, because the term nation 
embraces under it persons who give character to the 
nation : but if it relates to future punishment only 
it does not exclude death as the end of the anguish. 

He quotes Luke xiii. 28, — "There shall be weeping, 
wailing, and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see 
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in 
the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out." 
This text does not express the nature of the punish- 
ment threatened, nor its duration,- and, therefore, it 
is out of place so far as the doctrine of " eternal 
torments " is concerned. That the characters spoken 
of will or have been the subjects of this "weeping 
and wailing" I have no doubt; but what has this to 
do in opposition to their final extinction? I may 
ha^e occasion to notice this text again, and therefore 
for the present will leave it. 

The next passage quoted by Mr. Lee is Luke xvi. 
23, — "And in hell he lifted up his eyes being in 
torments." This is undeniably a national punish- 
ment, and is perfectly foreign to Mr. Lee's subject. 
See our previous remarks upon the Parable. 

He also refers to Rom. ii. 8, 9. The punishment 
here is also national and personal,- and it is inflicted 
on " the Jew first," as in the destruction of their 
commonwealth; and then upon the "Gentiles." 



100 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



That the apostle here describes personal judg- 
ments is clear ; but that they are to end in death is 
equally clear. He had just enumerated a catalogue 
of crimes and said the persons committing them 
were " worthy of death;" and he describes the 
termination of the tribulation and anguish to be to 
"perish," verse 12 ; and this in contrast with "im- 
mortality" verse 7. The conclusion is irresistable 
that the apostle here teaches a miserable destruc- 
tion, which he defines to be death, to all who wilfully 
persist in abusing God's " goodness and long suffer- 
ing." 

Mr. Lee has made a false issue, and hence in all 
his arguments he is "beating the air." An example 
of this we have in his remarks on Matt. xxv. 46 : — 
"And these shall go away into everlasting punish- 
ment, but the righteous into life eternal." Here an 
"everlasting punishment" is threatened, but it is 
not defined except by contrast. Its duration is clearly 
defined, but its nature has to be inferred. The 
righteous are to have "eternal life," and the oppo- 
site of " eternal life " is eternal death, or " eternal 
punishment." We are not under the necessity, 
therefore, to seek for the idea of "annihilation" in 
the term " everlasting," nor, indeed, in the term 
"punishment;" for the Bible is sufficiently explicit 
elsewhere in defining what this " everlasting punish- 
ment " is. 

Mr. Lee argues as though death was no punish- 
ment at all ; hence his criticism upon the word 
kolasin. In all civilized governments, death, not the 
pain of dying, is regarded as the greatest punish- 
ment which can be inflicted upon a transgressor. 
If pain was the radical idea of punishment, the end 
could be more certainly secured by torture, withou* 
death. Penalty, from poena, is the radical idea in 
punishment; hence punio, to punish, or inflict a 
penalty. This penalty, or punishment, may be 
whipping, cropping, branding, imprisonment , hard 
labor, confiscation of goods, transportation, or death 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



101 



the last being regarded as the greatest. This is the 
penalty of the divine law. 

But ? as we are now merely presenting general 
principles, we will proceed. 

Mr. Lee writes thus — "To maintain that the curse 
of the law, or the proper punishment of sin, is both 
suffering and annihilation, is to suppose that all the 
righteous suffer the penalty of the law once, and that 
the wicked endure it twice." Again, he remarks, 
" All the dead therefore have suffered the penalty of 
the law once, inasmuch as they have once died, 
which is a dissolution of their being, a loss of their 
existence." Once more, he remarks, that "this 
theory represents God in the attitude that government 
would be in, should it, having the power so to do, 
hang men, and then bring them to life for the sake 
of the privilege of hanging them again." I admit 
there is some force in this part of Mr. Lee 's argu- 
ment, but, at the same time, his own theory is more 
monstrous than the one he is opposing. For, for a 
man to die, and his "immortal soul" to be sent to 
"Hell" and "tormented" till the resurrection; and 
then for the "soul" to be united to a body, and sent 
back again to "Hell" to suffer " eternal torments," 
seems to be a strange penalty, and alike revolting to 
God and man. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

The destiny of the wicked, continued. 

The intelligent student of the Bible, I think, cannot 
fail to perceive the truth of the following position : 
That death is the full and final penalty of sin. 
Of course, in this proposition I make no allusion to 
national penalties ; but to the end of sin personally 
9 * 



102 SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



considered. The principle I have stated runs par- 
alel with the Revelations of God, and may be found 
on almost every page of the Scriptures. And I 
apprehend, we shall find but one penalty, in reference 
to the final destiny of man, from Genesis to Revela- 
tion. The penalty of Adam's sin is the penalti of 
the divine law, in every dispensation If we sustain 
this posi tion, Mr. Lee's whole superstructure crumbles 
into dust. 

P. The penalty of Adam's sin is thus expressed: 
" Thou shall surely die.^ This penalty is sub- 
sequently explained by the Lord, thus : "In the sweat 
of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou shalt return 
to the ground ; for out of it wast thou taken : for 

BUST THOU ART, AND TO LUST SHALT THOU RETURN. 

I wish it fully, distinctly and indelibly, impressed 
on the reader's mind* that the penalty of Adam's sin 
was not "eternal torments," but death — a death un- 
broken by a resurrection — a death perpetual in its 
dominion, unless some means were devised for his 
redemption. 

Death, then, was and is the penalty of the law. 
Paul, in his letter to the Romans, prsents this sub- 
ject very lucidly, chapter v. 12, &c. " Wherefore 
as by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, 
and death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men, 
for that all have sinned." 

Here we are taught that by sin, death — thanatos, 
came into the world, or kosmon; and this by the sin 
of one man, — Adam. No man can doubt but this 
death was the penalty of the law, and that but for this 
violation of law, death would not have entered the 
world. This fixes the meaning of the penalty, and 
shows it to be literal death. But " death passed upon 
all men, in whom"—i. e., in Adam — " all have sinned." 
The word dierchomai, here rendered " passed " sig- 
nifies to pass through, to pass over, to be propagated. 
Death, therefore, was propagated to the race. Adam, 
himself, being cut off from the tree of life ; and the 
whole race being in his loins at the time, in him they 



ON I3I3IORTALITY. 



103 



sinned — i. e., became " subject to vanity,'" and with 
him they came under the law of death. From this 
death however all are delivered by the second 
Adam, who died that he might be Lord both of the 
dead and the living. 

Ia vi. chap. 23d verse, Paul states the principle we 
have presented—" The wages or sin is death." 
This is a general principle— a universal law, run- 
ning through the Oracles of God. 

There are many other proofs of this position, 
but these mast now suffice. I regard the point as 
established, then, that death, and not the manner of 
dying, is the penalty of the law. 

Having presented this general principle, or law, I 
shall now notice Mr. Lee's proofs of endless misery, 
Ke refers to Mark ix. 43, 44. " It is better for thee 
to enter into life, maimed, than having two hands to 
go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quench- 
ed: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not 
quenched." 

The punishment here inflicted is in gehenna, 
which, as we have before said, is a phrase used to 
denote utter destruction ; as whatever was cast into 
the fire of Gehenna was thrown there, not to be 
preserved, but, to be destroyed; and nothing could 
escape total decomposition. The fire, or if not 
reached by that, the " worms " destroyed all flesh 
deposited in that common receptacle of the filth of 
Jerusalem. So at the execution of the judgment on 
corrupt and impenitent men, there should be a total 
and irrevocable extinction of being under most 
miserable circumstances. 

2. His next proof is Luke xvi. 19 — 31, which is the 
parable of the rich man. This we have already ex- 
amined, and shall let it pass. 

3. His third proof, in the article before me, is Rev. 
xxi. 14, 15. " Blessed are they that do his command- 
ments, that they may have a right to the tree of life, 



104 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



and may enter in through the gates into the city. 
For without are dogs and sorcerers, and whore- 
mongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and who- 
soever loveth and maketh a lie." Upon this Mr. Lee 
remarks — " there is not the slightest allusion to an- 
nihilation." And I will add — not the " slightest allu- 
sion" to "eternal misery," There is no proof that 
they are even alive, much less in torments* They are 
merely said to be " without the city /' and, for all this 
text proves, they may be dead and devoured by worms I 
Besides their state stands opposed to "having a 
right to the tree of life" — the privilege of living, and 
must therefore be death, 

4. Mr. Lee also refers to Rev. xiv. 11 — "The 
smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and 
ever." Mr. Lee observes on this — "we need not in- 
quire whether or not this text strictly relates to the 
final destiny of sinners." This is not the only text 
that Mr. Lee has taken for granted refers to the des- 
tiny of sinners ; and before quoting this, or them, he 
should have "inquired " whether or not they related 
lo the destiny of the wicked. This is " important to 
the argument," for " the representation" is not 
" borrowed " from their final destiny. The passage 
clearly refers to the " torments" of the living, in the 
present state, who " worship the beast and his image* 5 " 
and contains no allusion to the destiny of sinners in 
a future state. 

5. His next proof is Rev. xx. 10. "Shall be tor- 
mented day and night forever and ever." 

Mr. Lee is evidently straitened for proof of endless 
torments, or else he would not have quoted a passage 
so irrelevant to his subject. The Devil is here said 
to be cast into "the lake of fire and brimstone, 
where the beast and the false prophet were and (the 
devil) shall be tormented day and night forever and' 
ever." Whatever the Devil may be a symbol of in 
this place, the beast and false prophet are symbols 
of civil and ecclesiastical powers, which meet with 
their final overthrow in a place called " the lake of 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



105 



fire and I have no objection to the Devil's meeting 
his fate in the same place, although he should be 
"tormented" as long as " day and night" shall con- 
tinue ; for his end is destruction. See Heb. ii« 14. 

6. Mr. Lee refers to the following expressions on the 
duration of punishment : "To be cast into everlasting 
fire." Math, xviii. 8. " These shall go away into 
everlasting punishment, 5 * chap. xxv. 46. " Depart, 
ye cursed, into everlasting fire" verse 41. 2 Thess. 
i. 9. " Who shall be punished with everlasting de- 
struction." 

"In this argument," he says, "we rely wholly 
upon the duration of the suffering." Leaving out the 
word " suffering," which is not warranted by Mr. 
Lee's proofs, I w r ould observe, that we are perfectly 
agreed as to the duration of the punishment. Mr. 
Lee, however, has thrown together texts which have 
no connexion, and, without stating the context, 
presses them all into his service. 

Mr. Lee quotes Rom. i. 18. "The wrath of God 
is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and 
unrighteousness of men." This is a truth, which I 
presume, none will deny ; but I cannot see any proof 
of Mr. Lee's position in it. 

He again refers to Rom. ii. 8. 9 ; and as we have 
promised to examine this passage more fully, we will 
now proceed to do so. 

Having proved "both Jews and Gentiles to be 
under sin," the Apostle thus addresses the Jews : 
" Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whoever 
thou art, that judgest: for wherein thou judgest 
another, " (the Gentiles) "thou condemnest thyself: 
for thou that judgest, doest the same things." "But 
we are sure that the judgment of God is according 
to truth, against them who commit such things"—- 
whether they be Jews or Gentiles. "And thinkest 
thou this, O man, that judgest them who do such 
things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape 



106 SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



the judgment of God. Or despisest thou the 
riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and long 
suffering," (to thee, O man ;) "not knowing that the 
goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance ? But 
after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasures! 
up to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and 
revelation of the righteous judgment of God ; who 
will render to every man according to his deeds : 
to them who by patient continuance in well-doing t 
seek for glory, and honor, and immortality — eternal 
life : — But to them that are contentious, and do 
not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness — in- 
dignation and wrath ; tribulation and anguish 
upon every soul of man that doeth evil of the 
Jew first, and also of the Gentile ; hut glory, 
honor, and peace, to every man that worketh good, 
to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile ; for 
there is no respect of persons with God." Jews 
and Gentiles stand on an equal footing before 
God. In judgment God will be found no respecter 
of persons. Of whatever nation or people any 
man may be, he will be judged — rewarded and 
punished — according to the means and privileges 
he has enjoyed, and as he has improved or abused 
them. Those are first to be judged who have been 
first in privileges, and their guilt will be greatest 
who have abused the greater advantages ; but the 
whole context, and the epistle generally, shows the 
* end" to be death to the wicked: an exclusion from 
44 immortality." 

The Apostle continues : " For as many as have 
sinned without law, shall also perish," apolountai, 
from apollumi, perish — be destroyed — rendered 
vain — brought to nought i — " and as many as 
have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the 
law," &c. 

I have been thus particular on this passage, 
because I do not design returning to an exposition 
of it again. The reader will see nothing in this 
passage, favorable to the doctrine of endless misery. 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



10? 



7. Mr. Lee also quotes Heb. x. 28—31. See the 
passage. Paul, in writing to Hebrews, or Jews, who 
had many temptations to apostacy, says — " For if 
we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge 
of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins* 
But a certain fearful apprehension of judgment and 
fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries," 
or apostates. " He that despised Moses* law, died 
without mercy," (died without obtaining mercy) 
"under two or three witnesses : of how much more 
severe punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought 
worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of 
God," as the Jews had done, " and hath counted the 
blood of the covenant, by which he was sanctified, 
an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the 
spirit of grace ! " Paul teaches these Hebrews, that, 
if they apostatized, they would be counted worthy 
of a more severe punishment than the law of Moses 
inflicted — even a "fiery indignation which should 
devour " them. " And now," says he? " the just shall 
live by faith : but if any man draw back, my soul 
shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of 
them who draw back to" destruction — or "perdi- 
tion ; but of them that believe to the saving of the 
soul." 

The doctrine of absolute destruction is taught 
here. 

8. Mr. Lee's final proof of " eternal misery" is 
founded on the fact that " the Scriptures associate the 
punishment of sinners wdth the existence and pun- 
ishment of devils," &c. 

Upon this point we shall say but little, simply 
because whatever the punishment of fallen angels 
may be, Mr. Lee has no right thence to conclude that 
such will be the punishment of sinners. Mr. Lee 
says he will not undertake to prove that " devils are 
disembodied spirits." I think he does well not to 
undertake it ! 

There is only one passage to which he refers, 
which has a sufficient bearing upon the question for 



109 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS. 



me to notice it; and that is Matt. xxv. 41 : — " Depart 
from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared 
for the devil and his angels." 

The term angels here is the same, in the original, 
as in Cor. xii. 7, where Paul speaks of kt a thorn in 
the flesh, the messenger of satan." It is angelos in 
both texts ; and applies to any instrument or agents 
satan may employ to annoy the saints. It does not 
necessarily signify any intelligent being. Herice, so 
far as the angelos of the devil are concerned, the 
text, Mat. xxv. 41, cannot be made to prove that there 
is any conscious suffering at all; because it cannot 
be demonstrated that they are real beings any more 
than it can be proved that Paul's angelos, or thorn in 
his flesh was a real person. And if the angelos, in 
the case of Paul, was an intelligent being, it was 
clearly "false apostles, deceitful workers, trans- 
forming themselves into the apostles of Christ : " 
chap. xi. 13. Hence they were men, who under the 
pretence of superior knowledge had opposed the 
truth: "blind leaders of the blind;" both to be 
irrecoverably destroyed, as the figure " everlasting 
fire " clearly imports. Such we have shown to be 
the fate of the devil and his w T orks, with all his 
agencies. See again Heb. ii. 14, and 1 John, iii. 8. 
Such will be the fate of all wicked men : their pun- 
ishment is " everlasting destruction from the pres- 
ence of the Lord : " 2 Thess. i. 9. 



CHAPTER XV. 

Objections answered. 

Its Mr. Lee's 19th article he presents " an answer 
to the objection that " his theory of the human mind, 
and " his " method of proving its immateriality from 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



109 



its own phenomena, will prove that brutes have 
immaterial souls." With what success he has met 
this objection, we shall soon see. 

1. Mr. Lee says — " we shall not deny ourself a 
soul lest we should give one to our faithful clog!" 
" We shall not reason our own soul out of existence 
lest we should reason one into a brute." 

'Well, I have no doubt Mr. Lee's "faithful dog' ? 
has just as much soul as he has ! Of course I use 
the term now, in its primary sense of life. Mr. Lee 
is a " living soul" and so is his "faithful dog!" Ai 
least, so taught Moses; and he is good authority. 

Mr. Lee further says — "we would sooner embrace 
a theory which would elevate brutes to men, by 
giving them souls, than one which would degrade 
men to brutes, by taking away their souls." Nc 
doubt of it, Mr. Lee ; for you are so hostile to the 
truth that you would sooner ascribe immortality tc 
every beast of the field, every fowl of the air — the 
fish of the sea, and all the animalcule in the 
universe, than predicate mortality of the entire man t 

We are not at all " alarmed at the idea that a 
horse should be so much like a man as to have a 
soul ;" for this is true : both have souls, for both are 
"living souls." Mr. Lee says — "we would rather a 
horse should have a soul, than not to have one 
ourself!" Certainly, Mr. Lee, I have no doubt of it ! 

But what does all this prove 1 It proves to a 
demonstration, that Mr. Lee knows nothing about the 
soul ! 

He continues — " If any one can prove from them 
(his arguments) that beasts have souls, we shall not 
do violence to the reason which God has given us to 
escape the consequences." Well, we shall see. 

2. Mr. Lee remarks— "The objection, if admitted,, 
would involve the objector in precisely the same 
difficulty," &c. This is not true ; because we make 
the superiority of man over the brutes, to consist in 
organization. And this difference in organization 
was the result of design on the part of the Creator 

10 



no 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



Man's superior organization gives him superior 
powers — some of which are moral, and the whole 
render him a responsible and moral agent. But not 
so with the brutes. But, to commence with Mr. 
Lee's arguments, he affirms, that the difference 
between human intelligence and brute intelligence, 
lies not in degree, but in nature" 

Mr. Lee evades, or shifts, his original position; 
for, at first, he contended that matter had no "intelli- 
gence and when pressed on this point in relation to 
brutes, that his theory must necessarily give immor- 
tality to all animals, he meets it by saying it is not 
the same kind of "intelligence!" Pray, then, is 
matter possessed of any sort of " intelligence 1" Mr. 
Lee's answer must be — " Yes, of brute ' intelligence !' " 
Thus he has to dispose of his original position, 
before he can proceed ! 

Mr. Lee has certainly abandoned his first position. 
He has profited by my strictures, although he has 
passed them in sullen silence, lest his readers should 
know that a stripling with a smooth stone from the 
brook, had smote the Goliah to the ground, and cut 
off his head ! 

But let us see what he makes of his present 
position. Mr. Lee gives to brutes " sensation and 
perception," which he calls "instinct." Well, Mr. 
Lee, do you ascribe "sensation and perception" to 
matter or not? If you do, you have given up as lost 
your original position; but, if you do not, you are 
compelled by your theory to give animals " imma- 
terial" minds ! because matter, in your view of the 
subject, has not the properties of "sensation," "per- 
ception," nor " instinct." 

What is " instinct?" The word is derived from 
the Latin intfinctus, and signifies the power deter- 
mining the will of brutes. 

Mr. Lee says — "Instinct never improves." This is 
not true ; for that pow T er which controls, or modifies, 
t ie will of brutes can be educated, as we see in the 
horse, dog, elephant, camel, monkey, &c, &c. But 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



Ill 



even supposing it were otherwise, the very existence 
of instinct in brutes is incompatible with Mr. Lee's 
theory, unless he can prove it to be a property of 
matter ; which he is far from being disposed to admit. 

Mr. Lee remarks that animals " never think" and 
immediately after he speaks of " their mental opera- 
tions," as if "mental operations" could go on with- 
out thought! Animals do "think," however, as we 
shall soon prove, And if "animal instinct never 
imparts to its fellow animal, the limited education it 
is capable of receiving from the more skilful hand 
of man," it is capable of teaching its " fellow animal " 
many things which man cannot. Man cannot teach 
the newly fledged bird to fly ; but she who nursed it, 
and watched over it, can do this in the shortest 
possible time. 

3. Mr. Lee says "brutes " are not conscious This 
is also a fallacy. Mr. Lee's illustration does not 
disprove it. " Consciousness " is a " sensation " of 
identity,. without which one animal might, and would 
mistake himself for another, or another for himself. 
It is folly to say that animals have not a sentiment 
of personal identity, which is self-consciousness* 

4. Mr. Lee remarks — "brutes do not "possess "vo- 
lition and will" This is an error; for a horse not 
only prefers " to go in one direction, rather than to 
be driven in another;" but he has a "will" to return 
from the distance of many miles, and that too by the 
most direct route, to the place of his abode. This 
involves "will" "memory" of place, and locality, or 
a perception of relative distance, and the " mental 
operation" of selecting the nearest route. This is 
more than mere " instinct," or desire, or impulse. 
"Instinct" is desire — appetite— predisposition ; and 
why should an animal desire one place above 
another, but for a consideration 1 The feline species, 
though tied up in a bag, will return to their original 
home by the most direct route, even in the dark, 
when at liberty. 

5. " Brutes " have no " memory,' 1 says Mr. Lee. 



112 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



This is is a greater error than any of the preceding. 
If brutes had no memory, when they left one place 
they would have no desire to return to their original 
place of abode, more than to another; but this is 
contrary to fact. Animals prefer one place above 
another, when they are absent from them. Animals 
trained by one individual, if taken from them for a 
time, will recognize their original master when they 
meet them, and manifest pleasure at the sight. 
What is this but the associations of memory ] 

6. Mr. Lee says — "Men have conscience, but 
brutes have none." This may be true; for we have 
never maintained that brutes were men ! Their 
organization is different, and, by consequence, their 
powers, or faculties, are different. But, up to this 
item, Mr. Lee has been in error, and I defy him to 
reconcile the preceding items with his theory ! 

7. Whether " brutes " are the subjects of " hope," 
or not, I will not now dispute ; but that they have 
"fears " none who understand their nature will deny. 
They manifest fear on many occasions, and, also ? 
"joy," or pleasure, 

8. But, to sum up the argument, Mr. Lee defines 
"instinct" to be a compound of "sensation and 
perception." Then there must be various kinds of 
" instinct ;" or, 

1. A Geometrical "instinct," for Bees are geo- 
metricians. Their cells are constructed as, with the 
least quantity of materia!, to have the largest size 
spaces, and least possible loss of interstice. So also 
is the Ant-lion ; his funnel-shaped trap is exactly 
correct in its conformation, as if it had been formed 
by the most skilful artist of our species, with the aid 
of the best instrument. 

2. A Meteorological " instinct /" for the Mole is a 
Meteorologist. 

3. An Arithmetical " instinct ,•" for the bird called 
Ninekille is an arithmetician; so is the Crow, the 
Wild Turkey, and some other birds. 



OX IMMORTALITY. 



113 



4. An Electrical "instinct because the Torpedo, 
the Ray. and the Electric Eel, are Electricians 

5. A Navigator: al " instinct;" for the Nautilus is a 
Navigator. He sets and lowers his sails, casts and 
weighs anchor, and performs the other nautical 
evolutions. ■ • 

6. A Musical "instinct /' for whole tribes of birds 
are Musicians. 

7. An Architectural " instinct /' the Beaver is an 
Architect, Builder, and Wood-cutter. He cuts down 
timber and builds houses and dams. 

8. A Civil-engineering " instinct for such is the 
character of the Marmot : he not only builds houses, 
but constructs aqueducts to keep them dry. 

9. A Military "instinct," for the white Ants main- 
tain a regular army of soldiers. 

10. An Horticultural " instinct /' the East India 
Ants raise mushrooms, upon which they feed their 
young. 

11. A Mechanical" instinct /' Wasps are paper man- 
ufacturers ; Caterpillars are silk-spinners ; Pioceus 
Texter is a weaver — he weaves a web to make his 
nest; the Prime is a tailor — he sews the leaves 
together to make his nest. The squirrel is a ferry- 
man. With a chip or piece of bark for a boat and 
his tail for a sail, he crosses a stream. Dogs, 
Wolves, and Jackalls are hunters. The Black Bear 
and Heron are fishermen. The Ants have regular 
days of labour; and the Monkey is an expert rope- 
dancer. 

12. An " instinct" for Government, Beavers pre- 
sent us a model of a Republic; Bees with a 
Monarchy; the Indian Antelope of a Patriarchial ; 
Elephants of an ari-tocracy of Elders; wild horses 
have a leader; and sheep are under the control of a 
military chief ram ! 

Now. if Mr. Lee can reconcile all these powers 
with his theory, let him do it; or, otherwise, let him 
yield his position as utterly unworthy of being 
defended. But, if he can harmonize these facts with 
10* 



114 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



his view, he will do more than any other author has 
ever been able to do. 



CHAPTER XVI, 

The destiny of the wicked, continued. 
We now resume the question of the ultimate des- 
tiny of the wicked. And may God by his truth 
shine upon us, and illuminate our mind ! 

1. Mr. Lee admits " that the punishment of sin is 
termed death;" but denies that death involves the 
extinction, or cessation, of life. This amounts to 
this — " that the punishment of sin is termed " what 
it is not ! 

We do not "assume that death is the extinction of" 
life,- for we have proved, in a previous article, that 
the " punishment of sin is death" in a literal sense 
of the word. We do not define death to be " anni- 
hilation " in the strict and philosophical sense of 
the term, and Mr. Lee evades a correct issue by the 
continued use of that term. But let that pass. 
The question to be proved is, that death is the cessa- 
tion, or extinction, of the functions of life. 

2. Mr. Lee argues that because the "term death is 
applied to both the righteous and the wicked,'' this 
"is sufficient of itself to show the absurdity of re- 
lying upon the force of the word death, to prove 
what the punishment of sin is." It is "absurd," 
then, to rely upon the words, or language, of a 
penalty, to determine what that penal y is ! Mr. 
Lee certainly does not profess to be wiser than his 
Maker, for Jehovah has not left it to Mr. Lee, to me, 
nor to an} T other man, to infer what death is. God, 
Himself, has defined it in the most explicit manner 
— "Dust thou art, and unto LUST shalt thou RE- 
TURN." This is death. The simple act of dying 
is not death. Dying is the process of entering into 
death. Not dying, but death, is the penalty of the 
divine law. 



IMMORTALITY. 



115 



Mr. Lee quotes Heb. ix. 27. — " And as it is ap- 
pointed to men once to die, but after this the judg- 
ment," as though this had anything to do with 
"eternal torments." Death was "appointed" before 
the "judgment;" but Mr. Lee says men never die 
literally, and, upon the same principle of reasoning, 
he should do away with the judgment. 

3. Mr. Lee affirms that, "there is nothing in the 
etymology, or common scriptural use of the word, 
to justify the assumption that it means annihilation." 
This word " annihilation " haunts Mr. Lee's brain 
like his faith in " ghosts !" But let us examine the 
"etymology and scriptural use of the word," and see 
if the extinction of life is not found in it as the 
primary and radical meaning. 

Mr. Lee quotes Eom. vi. 23. — "The wages of sin 
is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through 
Jesus Christ our Lord." The word here rendered 
death, is, in the greek, thanatos, which Mr. Lee's 
authority thus defines — "Death, i. e., the extinction 
of life ; exposure to danger of death, disease, pesti- 
lence, spiritual death," &c. The reader will observe, 
that the first, or primary, meaning of thanatos, is 
" The extinction of life." This is the literal, unfigur- 
ative, common, scriptural, and etymological mean- 
ing of the word. Grove's Lexicon thus defines it: 
" To die, fall, perish, expire." Here, again, we get 
the full force of the word thanatos, which involves 
the idea of the exnnction of life, or a cessation of 
the functions of life. 

But, reader, what is Mr. Lee's comment 1 — " From 
this it is seen that by going back to the original, we 
get no nearer the idea of "—what 1 Death 7 ? No, but 
"annihilation/" This really looks dishonest; how- 
ever, I hope better things of Mr. Lee, though he 
w r rites thus. 

Mr. Lee remarks — " In the text above quoted, it 
will not be denied that death and eternal life are 
opposed to each other, and by their different signifi- 
cations, make the difference in the destiny of the 



116 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



saved and lost." This is true, the penalty, or 
"wages of sin," and " the gift of God," run parallel 
with each other. Death in its " dominion" is the 
wages of sin — death eternal ; and eternal life, un- 
mixed with evil, disease, or death, the reward of the 
righteous. 

Mr. Lee says thanatos denotes the death of the 
body but, then, he has taught us, that the body of 
itself, being matter, has no life! How then can it 
die? 

Again, he says, the word zoe " denotes natural life, 
the life which we now live." We shall notice this 
presently. He then professes to give two instances 
where thanatos denotes the death of the body, as 
though any theologian was so simple as to suppose 
it was not used in that sense ! Truly, Mr. Lee must 
suppose his readers are very ignorant. The death 
of the body is the death of the man — the cessation 
of the functions of life, whether he apply it to men 
before, or after the resurrection. 

Again, what student of the Scriptures does not 
know, that zoe is applied to the present life, and the 
eternal life of the righteous] But this does not alter 
the meaning of the word — it has the same primary 
meaning, whether we apply it to the life that now is, 
or to that which is to come. The difference between 
them is expressed by another word — eternal. Mr. 
Lee makes a smoke where there was none, and 
then presumes his readers will not see his mis- 
takes. 

It may be true, as Mr. Lee says, that " there is not 
the least proof that death signifies annihilation " 
but there is abundant proof that it signifies the ex- 
tinction of life. And what if these terms are used 
in a "figurative sense;" does that do away with 
their literal sense ? And will Mr. Lee tell me what 
words are not, sometimes, used in a figurative sense ? 

"The word death," says Mr. Lee, " is often used 
when loss of existence cannot be meant." Of 
course it is ; and it " is often used when loss of" life 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



117 



must "\)e meant." The first text you quote proves 
this — "Follow me; and let the dead bury the dead." 
Here it is used both in a figurative and literal sense, 
and you cannot put any other construction upon it. 
Let the dead, in sin, bury the literally dead, Matt* 
8. 22. 

In Eph. v. 14, Mr. Lee gives us another example: 
— "Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the 
dead, and Christ shall give you light." Here the 
words sleep, arise, and dead, are all used in a moral, 
or figurative, sense ; but shall we thence conclude 
that they are never used in a literal sense 1 That 
men never literally sleep, arise, or are dead] What 
sophistry Mr. Lee displays ! 

When Mr. Lee applies thanatos to physical death, 
he says it means the death of the body ; i. e. t of a 
part of the man. In what sense will he apply it, 
when he uses it morally 1 Will he say, that a man 
is half dead to God 1 Or half dead in sin 1 I appre- 
hend here is a chasm he did not see through the 
smoke and fog he raised ! I suppose when a man is 
dead in sin, that he is without the life of God — he 
has no moral, or spiritual life. The term thanatos, 
therefore, when used morally, must imply the ab- 
sence, or extinction of spiritual life. 

The Bible speaks of some who " are twice dead," 
and then " plucked up by the roots ; " but Mr. Lee 
is so benevolent that he will not suffer himself to 
believe that any man is more than half dead! 

Mr. Lee quotes Col. ii. 20 ; Eph. ii. I ; 1 Tim. v. 6 ; 
Rev. iii. 1 ; but as all these passages speak of 
death in the sense defined above, we shall not offer 
any comment upon them. Mr. Lee insists they do 
not teach "annihilation," and in this we agree. 

Mr. Lee's last argument on this point has refer- 
ence to the "second death." He says there is no 
" annihilation" in it ; and there certainly is no eter- 
nal misery in it; and here, for the present, we shall 
leave it. 



113 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



Mr. Lee concludes his essay thus — " We trust we 
have now shown that death does not signify annihi- 
lation." Very well, Mr. Lee, new prove it does not 

signify extinction of life ! 

This you have never done yet. 



CHAPTER XYE 

The destiny of the wicked, concluded. 

Ix Mr. Lee's article No. 21, he professes to meet 
" the assumption," as he is pleased to call it, " that 
the word destruction means annihilation, or loss of 
conscious existence." With what success he has 
done this, remains to be seen. 

The principal text examined by Mr. Lee in this 
article, is 2 Thess. i. 9. Who shall be punished 
with everlasting destruction from the presence of the 
Lord, and the glory of his power." 

Upon the word destruction, he remarks, it " does 
not necessarily mean loss of existence." I would ask 
Mr. Lee, if " it necessarily means " any thing ! And, 
if it do, what is it? Does it necessarily mean " eter- 
nal torments]" I affirm it "necessarily" carries 
along with it its primary meaning; and that, there- 
fore, when applied to the final destiny of men, it 
"necessarily means loss of existence," or loss of 
life. 

Mr. Lee has given the definitions of lexicographers, 
one of which is perdition. The Greek is apoleian, 
which is another form of cpoluo, and signifies, among 
other things, to dismiss from life, permit to die. 
Olethros is derived from the verb oleo, and so are the 
words apoiluo and apoUumi also derived from oleo ; 
so that the meaning and force of olethros is found in 
the word perdition, and the force of perdition is found 
in apoiluo, which signifies to be destroyed, to perish, 
to render vain, to bring to nought. While, therefore, 
the text might be rendered — " Who shall be punished 



ON IMMORTALITY. 



119 



with everlasting perdition," or "everlasting ruin," it 
could not be rendered ''everlasting misery" without 
discarding its primary meaning. 

2. The word "tribulation" in the 6th verse is not 
the "same punishment," as that in the 9th, as Mr. 
Lee has asserted. He also says that " the word 
everlasting cannot well be applied to any term 
denoting annihilation." This is an assumption, and 
a fallacy. For, first, the word " annihilation " does 
not express the condition of the destroyed. They are 
not " annihilated." And I cannot help thinking, 
that Mr. Lee has selected this word for the purpose 
of throwing dust in the eyes of his readers, lest they 
should see the nakedness of his arguments! 

But why cannot the word " everlasting" be applied 
to destruction? If a thing be destroyed without the 
possibility of restoration, why may it not be termed 
everlasting ? The word everlasting adds force to the 
term destruction — a force which is irresistible to 
you! It shows that it is no temporary destruction 
which may be repaired, but a never-ending perdition. 
The word destruction signifies disorganization, and 
the term "everlasting" prefixed indicates its eternal 
duration. What an abuse of all logic — all reason, 
and common sense! According to your argument, 
the words eternal, everlasting, and immortal, should 
never be applied to God ! He is self-existent, and 
the word "everlasting" can add no force when 
applied to him ! Of course the term " everlasting " 
implies that there may be a destruction which is not 
everlasting," and I will give you an instance; but 
this is not to " abandon the argument founded on the 
meaning of the term." 

" O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself, but in me is 
thy help," is an example in point. This destruction 
is not everlasting. 

•Mr. Lee remarks, that " God himself cannot restore 
a person thus destroyed." As a question of power, 
God could restore even that which he had annihi- 
lated, much more could he restore that which was 



120 SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 



resolved into its original elements. But he wills not 
to do it, and therefore the destruction is everlasting. 

3. Mr. Lee argues that "the nature of this punish- 
ment called destruction, proves it not to be annihila- 
tion." This is a very singular sentence, and reads, 
when divested of its mysticism, ^The nature of this 
punishment called destruction, proves it not to be 
destruction /" The punishment is destruction, this is 
its nature; and yet its nature proves it not to be 
destruction ! Really ! 

Mr. Lee continues — " It consists in being banished 
from the presence of the Lord," &c. 'Not '* banished " 
Mr. Lee, but "punished" Why substitute the word 
"banishment," for " punishment ?" The truth is 
better expressed without your glosses. The " punish- 
ment " is " destruction and the " destruction " shuts 
them out "from the presence of the Lord and the 
glory of his power." What can be plainer ] " The 
everlasting destruction," then, is not a "banishment 
from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his 
power," as Mr. Lee asserts ; but a punishment con- 
sisting in destruction. 

4. Mr. Lee introduces several passages for the 
purpose of showing the use of the word in other 
senses. His first text, Hosea xiii. 9, is a politico- 
ecclesiastica] destruction, which is a metaphorical 
use of the word. He quotes 1 Cor. i. 19, where it 
signifies to render vain, or bring to nothing, the 
wisdom of the wise. He also refers to Horn. iii. 16, 
where he says, " destruction means ruin or perdition." 
Very well! He quotes Matt. xii. 13, where de- 
struction is used to express the destiny of the wicked ; 
he says — "it means to ruin, cr perdition." All right! 

He refers to Luke xvii. 27, where it is used to 
express the destruction by the flood. In Acts ix. 21, 
where it is used to imply physical death. And to 
Matt. v. 17, where it is used analogically to signify 
abrogation. Thus we have its literal and metaphori- 
cal use before us, and the reader can judge of their 
import. 



ON IMMORTALITY, 



121 



Mr, Lee has certainly failed to prove, that the word 
destruction, when applied to the destiny of the wicked, 
does not signify absolute destruction, or perishing. 
Our position remains just as it was before he dis- 
charged his artillery. 

1. In Mr. Lee's article, No, 22, which is his last 
effort, he offers a " reply to the assumption " as he 
terms it, " that the word perish signifies annihila- 
tion." 

He says "the words perish, perished, perisheth," 
are "nowhere used to describe or express the quality 
of the punishment of sin." This is a grand assump- 
tion. These words not only express the certainty but 
the nature of the sinner's punishment, as we shall 
see. Indeed the very passages he has quoted afford 
proof of this. "Except ye repent, ye shall all 
likewise perish." Luke xiii. 3, Pilate had mingled 
the blood of the Galatians with their sacrifices ; and 
the tower in Siloam fell and destroyed eighteen per- 
sons : they perished; and Jesus said — "Except ye 
repent, ye shall likewise perish," or in like manner, 
" perish," die — come to nought. 

The text in John iii. 15, 16., presents us with the 
word "perish" undeniably expressive of the destiny 
of the world, apart from the gift of Christ ; and it 
fully expresses the destiny of those, who will not 
come to Christ that they may have life. 

And in Rom. ii. 12, the word perish is used in the 
same sense. So also 1 Cor. xv. 18 ; 2 Peter ii. 
12, and Jude ii. Peter says " shall utterly perish in 
their own corruption." McKnight, if any thing, 
makes it stronger, when he renders it " by their own 
corruption, for this expresses the cause of perishing. 

2. The original words remain to be examined in 
this place. Apolluo and apollumi, from the word 
Oho, signify to destroy, kill ; and, intransitively, to be 
destroyed, perish ; to put to death, render vain to bring 
to nought. Apolluo, from uso, and compounded of 
apo and luo, signifies to loose, to send away, dismiss 
from life, permit to die. 



\22 SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS. 



"If the candid reader can see no certain proof n of 
lestruction here, he must be blinded or greatly in- 
fatuated with an antiquated theory. 

Mr. Lee blunders seriously over Cor. xv. 18. 
Does he really believe, that, if Christ had not risen, 
those who had fallen asleep in him would have suf- 
fered eternal misery 1 If so, I envy him not. 

Mr. Lee's " illustrations," so far from proving that 
perish does not mean loss of conscious being, fully 
sustains this position. " Lord, save us, we perish.'* 
" Here perishing means only death by drowning," 
says Mr. Lee. Very well, it means death ! chap. ix. 
17. "The bottles perish." "Here," he says, "to 
perish is to be rendered useless or worthless" Very 
well! Luke xiii. 33. "It cannot be that a prophet 
perish out of Jerusalem." " Here to perish is to die, or 
be put to death," says Mr. Lee. All is well ! chap. xv. 
17. "I perish with hunger." "Here perishing," says 
Mr. Lee, " means to die of hunger." All right again ! 

Mr. Lee also refers to Eccles. vii. 15 : Isa. lvii. 1 ; 
Jer. ix. 12, in the first two instances it means death, 
in a literal sense; and, in the last, desolation* 

Speaking of 1 Cor. xv. 17. 18, he says the " Apostle 
makes the virtue of the atonement depend upon the 
fact of the resurrection' of Christ," &c. This may 
be true ; for if Christ had remained among the dead, 
or under the dominion of death, there would have 
been "no profit in his blood." This the Psalmist 
teaches. 

That the term perish means what we have pre- 
viously defined it to mean, we have the following 
additional testimony: "If" God "should set his 
heart upon man, if he should gather to himself his 
spirit and his breath; all flesh would perish together, 
and NAT* would turn again to dust" Job. xxxiv. 14, 
15. Again, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise 
and will bring to nothing the understanding of the 
prudent." 1. Cor. x. 19. And so, also, "the preach- 
ing of the cross is to them that perish foolishness." 



THE 



two thrones: 

OR, 

THE THRONE OF GOD & THE THRONE OF CHRIST. 

BY GEORGE STORRS. 
■ — o— 

Text. — li To him that overcometh will I grant to sit 
with me in my throne, even as 1 also overcame, and am 
set down with my Father in his throne,'' Rev. 3 : 21. 

— o — 

These words are addressed by our Lord to his fol- 
lowers after his exaltation from suffering and death. 
They clearly recognize two thrones, viz. The Throne 
of the Father and the Throne of him who " is the 
beginning of the creation of God verse 14. 

The position that our Lord Jesus Christ occupies 
during the present age, we apprehend, is but very 
imperfectly understood : or, is too generally over- 
looked. He now occupies a position that maybe 
illustrated by the case of Joseph after his captivity 
and suffering in Egypt, Gen. 41 : 40 — 44, u Thou 
slialt be over my house, and according unto thy 
word shall all my people be ruled : only in the 
throne will 1 be greater than thou. And Pharoah 
said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the 
land of Egypt. And Pharaoh took off his ring from 
his hand, and put it upon Joseph's hand, and array- 
ed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold 
chain about his neck. And he made him to ride in 
the second chariot which he had : and they cried 
before him, Bow the knee : and he made him ruler 
over all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh said unto 
Joseph, 1 am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no 
man lift up his hand or foot, in all the land of 
Egypt."' 



2 



THE TWO THRONES. 



Here it is seen that Pharaoh invested Joseph with 
supreme and unlimited authority, reserving only the 
right to resume that authority when the end is ac- 
complished for which this investment was made. 
During the period that this authority was in Joseph"? 
hands, all Pharaoh's kingdom was to be ruled by 
Joseph's word, and without his authority " no man 
should lift up his hand or foot in all the land of 
Egypt/' It was only in the throne that Pharoah 
reserved a superiority to Joseph • all other authority 
was made subject to him : even to the right to make 
and l: seaP laws, as the King's seal was put upon 
Joseph's hand by Pharoah's own act. Thus God. 
the Father, exalted Jesus, after his sufferings and 
death, to His throne in heaven. 

The Throne or God. 
This is that on which Jesus our Lord sits during 
this present age, and which he will continue to oc- 
cupy till his enemies are subdued, and he has given 
to him his own throne : on this throne he is now 
invested with " all power in heaven and in earth." 
That this is his present position we shall now at- 
tempt to show from the Scriptures. 

1. The text asserts that our Lord now sits on his 
Father's throne. and that prior to his actual session 
there, he overcame ; which imports that it was aftei 
his sufferings and death that he was exalted to that 
high honor and dignity. 

2. The present exalted position of our Lord was 
a matter of promise, as we find recorded, Psa . 110: 1 . 
u The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my 
right hand, until I make thine enemies thy foot- 
stool."' 

The meaning of this text the Pharisees could not 
comprehend when our Lord propounded to them the 
question how David in spirit called the Christ Lord, 
if he was David's son, as they affirmed. Truly, 
the Pharisees were not able to answer that 



THE THRONE OF GOD. 



3 



question, nor was any other man prior to our Lord's 
ascension to the throne of God, after his resurrection 
from the dead. God had determined to give him 
the throne of his father David • but the spirit of 
prophecy foresaw that when he should come into 
the world the nation would reject him as king and 
put him to death. Thus he would be denied his 
own throne, by men, at that time ; but u The Lord 
Jehovah — said unto 5 ' him, in promise, I will raise 
you from the dead, and " sit thou at my right hand"' 
— be seated on my throne ; though denied your 
own, viz., the throne of your father David, you shall 
nevertheless have a throne and be exalted to rule, 
till by the authority and power I will invest thee 
with, " thine enemies" shall be made u thy foot- 
stool." Such is the position to which Jehovah pro- 
mised to exalt His Son, when rejected of men ; for 
though " disallowed of men" he was " chosen of 
God and precious." In view of this exaltation— or, 
" for the joy that was set before him," he " endured 
the cross, despising the shame, and is sit down at 
the right hand of God." 

3. Peter took the same view of the present exal- 
tation of Jesus, on the day of Pentecost, when the 
Holy Spirit had been so copiously shed on the dis- 
ciples. After having spoken of his death and resur- 
rection, he adds, — " This Jesus hath God raised up, 
whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by 
the right hand of God exalted, and having received 
of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he 
hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 
For David is not ascended into the heavens : but he 
saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou 
on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy foot- 
stool. Therefore let all th.3 house of Israel know 
assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, 
whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." 

Here it will be seen that Peter refers to the 110th 



1 



THE TWO THROXES. 



Psa. 1st v., as having its fulfilment in Jesus' pre- 
sent exaltation. It should also be observed, that 
the Spirit of God in Peter marks emphatically the 
two thrones — '* God hath made that same Jesus 
whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." 
Christ signifies anointed, and refers to his kingship 
on David's throne : as all the kings of Israel were 
anointed to that office ; so was David by Samuel, 
as God directed. Peter, then, speaks of Jesus as the 
anointed king for David's throne, which was on 
earth ; but he also recognises, and wishes " all the 
house of Israel to know assuredly, that God hath 
made" Jesus " Lord or had seated him at his 
right hand, according to the promise of 110th Psa. ; 
and the evidence of this fact was manifest in that 
remarkable effusion of the Holy Spirit on that day. 
He does not lose sight, in the glory to which Christ 
is now exalted, of the fact that he is the anointed 
who is to sit on David's throne — or Messiah's own 
proper throne — an event then future, but made cer- 
tain by his present exaltation, now invested with 
power and authority to make his enemies his foot- 
stool. 

4. Paul calls attention to the present exaltation of 
our Lord, in speaking of " the working of God's 
mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when 
he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own 
right hand in the heavenly places, far above all prin- 
cipality, and power, and might, and dominion, and 
every name that is named, not only in this world, 
but also in that which is to come : and hath put all 
things under his feet, and gave him to be the head 
over all things to the church." Eph. 1 : 19 — 22. 

Here his authority on the Father's ihroneis fully 
stated : and is seen to be universal and unlimited : 
there is no principality, power, might, or dominion, 
in any part of the empire of Jehovah, excepted. All 
this is done with special reference to the sanctifica- 



THE THRONE OF GOD. 



5 



tion and final exaltation of Christ's church, "whichis 
his body and is also to constitute the body of his 
rulers, on his throne, when he shall be put in pos- 
session of it. 

C. In Heb. 8 : 1, the apostle uses this language — 
" Now of the things which we have spoken this is 
the sura : We have such an high priest, who is 
set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in 
the heavens." 

Here not only is his exaltation to his Father's 
throne noted, but that while there he executes the 
office, also, of high priest. How glorious the thought, 
that while invested w 7 ith ••all power in heaven and 
in the earth," he also appears on that throne in be- 
half of all who trust in him, or may come to God by 
him. 

6. Peter, in another place, expresses the idea of 
Christ's exaltation, and supreme authority on the 
throne of God : 1 Peter 3 : 22 — " Who is gone into 
heaven, and is on the right hand of God ;. angels and 
authorities and powers beingmade subject unto him." 
Here all is clear : there is a perfect subjection to his 
rule fully stated. 

7. In Rom. 14: 9, the apostle tells us — "For to 
this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, 
that he might be lord both of the dead and living. 77 
He attained to his present exaltation and authority 
by submitting to death and being raised up from 
the dead. Through this means he attained to the 
honor of being Lord both of the dead and living ; or 
the possession of unlimited power. 

8. We now come to another text in which this 
point is fully brought out. It is Phil. 2: 7 — 11, 
u But made himself of no reputation, and took upon 
him the form of a servant, and was made in the 
likeness of men. And being found in fashion as a 
man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto 
death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God 



6 



THE TWO THEOXES. 



also hath, highly exalted him, and given him a name 
which is above every name : that at the name of 
Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven, 
and things in earth, and things under the earth ; 
and that every tongue should confess that Jesus 
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." 

Here we see that Christ first subjected himself, 
voluntarily, to humiliation and a most shameful 
death. For this cause — on this account — or, because 
of this — " God hath highly exalted him — that at the 
name of Jesus every knee should bow? 5 — as Pharaoh 
required all to do before Joseph. And this subjec- 
tion to Jesus was of all in heaven, in earth, and un- 
der the earth : that is, it was universal and unlim- 
ited. This is more fully expressed, when it is 
added " Every tongue should confess that Jesus 
[-'the man"] Christ ["the anointed" king for 
David's throne] is Lord [ruler on the throne of God] 
to the glory of God the Father/*' who hath given 
him exaltation, and now requires all beings to pay 
Jesus homage in that state. He that refuses to do 
it is a rebel against God, and does not glorify the 
Father. Here then comes the test : Jesus has been 
rejected of men asking on David's throne: but God 
hath placed him on His own throne, and now re- 
quires all, as the sinequanon — the indispensible con- 
dition — to confess Jesus as the supreme ruler on the 
throne of God, by God's own appointment. The 
penalty for rejecting the requirement is death — the 
reward for complying with it is life eternal, and to 
be a partner with Christ on his own throne when 
he shall take possession of it. The condition speci- 
fied in this test is mortifying to the proud hearts of 
men : but that pride is the very thing that unfits 
them to live forever, or to have part with Christ on 
his own throne ; and hence must be overcome or 
we perish. Like Joseph's brethren let us make haste 
to humble ourselves before him, whom, by our sins, 



THE THRONE OF GOD. 



we have crucified afresh. He is ( < highly exalted," 
and we are required to honor him with great honor; 
and he deserves it well who has loved us unto death. 
Let all make haste to honor Jesus— the exalted Je- 
sus — Jesus on the throne of God — Jesus invested 
with supreme authority and universal sway— let us 
make haste to honor him as u Lord of all.' 7 The 
humiliation must be deep and unfeigned — no hy- 
pocritical pretentions of submission will pass here 
— it must be sincere and unreserved. 

9. In this state of exaltation Stephen saw Jesus 
just before his martyrdom, as recorded, Acts 7 : 55. 
56— " But he, being full of the Pxoly Ghost looked 
up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of 
God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 
and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened and 
the Son of man standin°; on the right hand of 
God. ; ' The testimony of Stephen, on that occasion, 
enraged the enemies of Christ, and they rushed 
upon the holy man of God with stones, stopped 
their ears, and slew him. Still. Jesus sits on the 
throne of God, notwithstanding the hatred of the 
human heart to this great truth, on the reception or 
rejection of which, where proclaimed, hangs life or 
death to men. God has chosen to place Jesus there : 
and requires all men to do him homage in that posi- 
tion ; and tests their disposition Gf mind towards 
himself by their acknowledgement or rejection of 
Jesus on the throne of God. 

10. Our Lord himself, after his resurrection from 
the dead, announced this truth for the reception of 
his followers — u All power is given unto me in hea- 
ven and in earth:" Mat. 28: 19. On this truth 
was based the commission to " Go teach oil nations : y> 
on the reception of this truth depended the action of 
the disciples in their work— on the belief of this 
truth must depend the action of sinners to whom the 
proclamation should come — on the belief of this truth 



8 



THE TWO THRONES 



and a correspondent action hangs our eternal desti- 
ny. He who rejects this truth, when cieaily pre- 
sented to his mind, must experience the judg- 
ment of God unto condemnation to the second 
death. 

L 1 . We may here notice that at the last inter- 
view of our Lord with his disciples, after having an- 
nounced this 2reat and all important truth, it is re- 
corded Mk. 16: 19— ; -So then, after the Lord had 
spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, 
and sar on the right hand of God."* Thus taking 
his position for the present age, on the throne of 
God. 

12. Paul informs us that it was after Jesus' suf- 
ferings that he was exalted to this high station. He 
says. Heb. I : 3 — u Who being the brightness of his 
glory, and the expiess image of his person, and up- 
holding all things by the word of his power when he 
had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the 
right hand of the Majesty on high." And again, 
Heb. 10: 12. 13. he says — r: But this man, after he had 
offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the 
right hand of God : from henceforth expecting till 
his enemies be made his footstool."* Here the 
apostle intimates not only that it was after his suf- 
ferings that he was exalted, but that the exaltation 
is to continue till his enemies shall be made his- 
footstool, leaving no hope of escape to such as con- 
tinue to refuse submission to God's requirement as 
expressed Phil. 2 : 9 — 11 ; which we have contem- 
plated. Submit and live : continue to rebel and die; 
one or the other we all must do. 

13. But. for the comfort of those who do submit, 
we record one more text on this point. Rom. R : 34, 
il Who is he that coudemneth ? It is Christ that 
died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at 
:he right hand of God, who also maketh intercession 
for usJ 7 



THE THROVE OF CHRIST. 



9 



How full of consolation to the humble soul who 
credits God's testimony of His Son. and who has 
complied with God's demand to yield him homage 
in the exalted throne to which he is raised. Four 
particulars are here stated : all full of consolation. 
I. - Christ died/*' What then if we are called 
to suffering and sorrow for his name ? 2. He - : is 
risen again/' Then he is alive ; and because he 
lives his followers shall live also. 3. He u is even 
at the right hand of God." Then he has the power 
to execute all his love designs for his followers. 
4. " Who also maketh intercession for us. ;; Then 
our cause is safe in his hands : for, the intercessor 
has in his hands all power in heaven and earth. 
What an intercessor — what a mediator — what a 
Saviour. 0, that men could see the bliss — the joy 
— the honor — the inexpressible value of an entire, 
constant, and eternal consecration to Jesus, God's 
exalted Son. 

Our Lord's seat on his Father's throne is not an 
unmeaning matter. He sits there in the administra- 
tion of authority and power till the number of his 
associate rulers shall be completed : then he will 
leave his Father's throne to take his own. We now 
come to speak of — 

The Throxe of Christ — Or, His Own Throne. 

That there is such a throne to be hereafter oc- 
cupied by Jesus, the Christ, we shall now endeavor 
to show. 

1. God in addressing David, 1 Chron. 17, makes 
use of this language, verses 11 — 14 — " And it shall 
come to pass when thy days be expired that thou 
must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up 
thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons ) and 
I will establish his kingdom. He shall build me an 
house, and 1 will establish his throne for ever. I 
will be his father, and he shall be my son : and I 



10 



THE TWO THKOZS'ES. 



will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it 
from him that was before thee : but I will settle him 
in mine house and in my kingdom for ever ; and his 
throne shall be established for evermore." That 
this language reaches beyond Solomon seems clear. 

2. " The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David, 
he will not turn from it. Of the fruit of thy body will 
I set upon thy throne."' Psa. 132 : 11. This is but 
an announcement of the Spirit God, by David, of 
the truth contained in the previously quoted text. 

3. The prophecy of Isa., however, settles this 
point. " For unto us a child is born, unto us a son 
ls.given: and the government shall be upon his 
shoulder : and his name shall be called Wonderful, 
Counsellor, The mighty God. The everlasting 
Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of 
his government and peace there shall be no end. upon 
the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order 
it, and to establish it with judgment and with jus 
tice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the 
Lord of hosts will perform this." Isa. 9 : 6, 7. 
Here it is clearly stated that the " child born" — 
"The Prince of Peace" — is to have 'jthe govern 
ment upon his shoulder ;" and that "government " 
is to be the :, throne of David, and upon his kingdom 
to re-establish it, and to support it :" so reads theSep- 
tuagint. Here then the point is settled as to what 
throne is Christ's own. It is that which David oc- 
cupied, and which was '-'overturned," as recorded 
Ezk. 21: 27, and which the " Lord God" said 
should remain subverted " till he come whose right it 
is, and I will give it to him." 

4. Accordingly prior to the "child" being "born" 
Gabriel was sent to Mary with the following an- 
nouncement, Lk. 1 : 32, 33, concerning "Jesus'-" — 
" He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of 
the Highest : and the Lord God shall give unto him 
the throne of his father David : and he shall reign 



THE THROVE OF CHRIST. 



II 



over the house of Jacob for ever ; and of his kingdom 
there shall be no end/' 

Here all is plain : the long expected child is about 
to be born, and the promise of God to David is now 
confirmed. This child Jesus is designated as the 
heir to David's throne ) which from henceforth is 
Jesus'' own throne. 

5. We will now contemplate the 2d Psa. in rela- 
tion to this point. This Psa. opens with the inquiry 
— " Why * * the kings of the earth set themselves, 
and the rulers take counsel together, against the 
Lord, and against his anointed his Christ] &c. 
This relates to the treatment the anointed would 
meet with at his first advent, and during the period 
that he would occupy his Father's throne— i e. du- 
ring the present age. Up to this hour, this descrip- 
tion of the character and conduct of the rulers of 
the earth has been exemplified in their ungodly rule 
and general disregard of the authority of God and 
his anointed ; even in those governments that have 
professed respect for that authority. They constant- 
ly outrage the great principles of the " Prince of 
Peace." This Psa. next contemplates (v. 4) Christ 
m his exaltation to his Father's throne in heaven : 
u He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh." The 
rulers of earth cast him out and slew him, and re- 
solved that they w^ould " not have this man to rule 
over them :" but God's choice opposed theirs ; and 
He raised up His anointed from the dead and gave 
him a throne in heaven ; where he now mocks at all 
the u rage" of his enemies on earth, however high 
or exalted the stations they may occupy : they rage 
in vain ; and in vain oppose the will of God con- 
cerning His Son's reign on earth • for "Jehovah 
shall have them in derision : then shall he speak 
unto them in his wrath," when, according to his 
promise to His Son, on seating him at his right 
hand, He shall make his enemies his footstool : for^ 



12 



THE TWO THEOXE5. 



notwithstanding, all the rage and counsel of wicked 
men, and wicked rulers, God says (v. 6) " Yet have 
I set ray kins'' — -the king of his choice — ''-upon my 
holy hill of Zion ;" the seat of David's empire, and 
place of David's throne. 

Next the anointed speaks himself, (v. 7.) "I 
will declare the decree: Jehovah said unto me. 
Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee"- 
bv raising him up from the dead ; see Acts 13 : 
33. Having thus raised him up from the dead and 
set him at his own right hand, on his Father's throne, 
Jehovah addresses him, (v. 8.) "Ask of me, and I 
will give the nations for thine inheritance, and the 
utmost parts of the earth for thy possession.*' V. 
9, Jehovah speaks of what His Son shall do to the 
kings and rulers of the earth who oppose the es- 
tablishment of his reign on the "holy hill of Sion," 
and the extension of his authority over the earth, 
viz "Dash them to pieces," &c. That this is the 
true meaning of verse 9 is evident from the lan- 
guage which follows— "Be wise now,"'— in the pre- 
sent time — " 0 ye kings ; be instructed, ye judges 
of the earth : serve Jehovah with fear . . . kiss 
the Son, lest ye perish from the way, when his 
anger suddenly blazeth forth." Septuagint. The 
whole Psalm shows that it is the kings, rulers and 
judges of the earth who use their power and au- 
thority in opposition to God and his anointed who are 
to be the subjectsof this wrath and be broken "'with 
a rod of iron:" and this is to take place when Christ 
comes to take his own throne — " the throne of his 
father David." 

6. One text more demands attention under this 
general head, viz.. Dan. 7: 13, 14 — "I saw in 
the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of 
man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to 
the Ancient of days.andthey brought him near before 
him. And there was given him dominion, and 



CHRIST RELINQUISHES HIS FATHER^ THRONE. 13 

a kingdom, that all pecple ; nations and languages, 
should serve him : his dominion is an ererlasting 
dominion, which shall not pass away, and his king- 
dom that which shall not be destroyed.' 7 

This text clearly establishes the fact of a throne 
to be given to the Son of man at the close of th 
present age, or after the judgment on the fourth 
beast which symbolises the fourth body of tyrannical 
rulers, or rulers and kings on the territory of the old 
Roman empire. When the judgment is in a process 
of accomplishment, on that symbolized power, is 
the time for the Son of man to have given to him in 
possession of his own throne, to rule over the na- 
tions, in person, associated with him the saints of 
the Most High : see verses 22 and 27. Before he 
takes actual possession of his own throne, 

Christ Relinquishes His Father's Throne. 

This relinquishment, however, does not occur till 
some time subsequent to, or after, the second advent 
of our Lord : for, 

1. At his advent "the son of man shall come in 
the glory of the Father," Mat. 16: 27; importing 
that the surrender has not then been made : nor can 
it have been according to the expressed determina- 
tion of Jehovah, that Christ should sit at his right 
hand, or upon his throne u until 17 Christ's enemies 
are made his footstool. Till that time, though the 
advent has occurred, our Lord retains his Father's 
throne: 

2. That this is the case, appears also from our 
Lord's words when the high priest u adjured" him 
"by the living God, to tell us whether thou be the 
Christ, the Son of God." " Jesus saith unto 
him, thou hast said : neverthless, I say unto 
you, hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sit- 
ting on the right hand of power, and coming in the 
clouds of heaven." — Mat. 26 : 63, 64. This answer 



14 



THE TWO THKOKES. 



shows that at the time of his appearing he is stili on 
his Father's throne — "the right hand of power," 
where we have seen he took his seat at his ascension 
into heaven. 

3. In further confirmation of this view we look 
at Paul's epistle to Titus, 2 : 13 — "Looking for that 
blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great 
God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Here it appears 
at the manifestation of Jesus from heaven, he will 
be in the glory of the great God : or, still invested 
with the glory and power with which he was clothed 
at his exaltation to the right hand of God. 

4. We come now to the most important text to 
be examined under this head. It is 1 Cor. 15: 24 
— 28. The general subject of this chapter is the 
resurrection of the dead. The apostle had affirmed 
that " every mail" is to be made alive " in his own 
order" [Gr. tagmati] bandy or cohort. Clearly indica- 
ting that men will come up in the resurrection in 
classes, companies or bands — not all at once. He 
then says — "Christ the first fruits; afterwards they 
that are Christ's at his coming ;" not necessarily im- 
plying all men that will ever be saved; but a speci- 
fic class ; viz., they who are his at the time of his 
coming, and are then asleep in the dust of the earth; 
these constitute one band, and now have their re- 
surrection, because they are the associate rulers; to 
prepare w r hom for partners of Christ : s throne this 
present age has been allotted. "Then" — after the 
resurrection of them that are Christ's at his coming 
-—"Then cometh the end.". "End" of what ? This 
is an important question. Various have been the 
interpretations given this text and context; but we 
confess nearly all w r e have ever seen are entirely 
tm satisfactory ; and our own mind has been much 
perplexed with the subject ; but if our previous po- 
sitions, in this discourse, are correct, we think we 
have now the key which unlocks the apostle's argu- 



CHRIST RELINQUISHES HIS FATHER'S THRONE. 15 

ment. Christ has, up to this time, occupied his 
Father's throne, and ordered the affairs of heaven 
and earth to prepare a body of rulers to sit with him 
on his own throne. The time allotted to that ob- 
ject now ends — this body of rulers are raised fiom 
the dead, or changed if alive at his coming. The 
time he was to occupy his Father's throne— or sit at 
his right hand now ends. His work on that throne 
of putting "down all rule" of his enemies, "and all 
authority 7 ' — that stood in opposition to his authority 
on earth, — "and" all " power"— that was exerted 
against his right to David's throne— or his dominion 
over all nations : this work is ended. Hence, the 
purpose for which he was seated on the throne ot 
God is accomplished; and the time which the Father 
said he should sit at his right hand is at an end. So 
then the period of his reign on that throne has found 
its termination, and Christ now delivers up that throne 
— that "kingdom— to God, even the Father," from 
whom he had received it after his death and resur- 
rection. "For he must reign" — -upon his Father's 
throne — "till he hath put all enemies under his feet 
The la / enemy"— that stands in Christ's way of 
taking possession of his own throne, with his associ- 
ate rulers — "shall be destroyed;*' and that enemy 
is " death/ 9 To this end, that Jesus, the anointed 
king might remove every obstacle in the way of 
the peaceable possession of his own throne, the 
Father exalted him to His throne in heaven, 
when he had been rejected by men on earth : that 
end is now accompli she 1, and Jesus who, by the 
pleasure of the Father, had occupied his Fathe rs 
throne as co-ordinate ruler thereon, now delivers up 
the kingdom — or throne— that he had been entrusted 
with, and theFather gives him his own proper throne; 
viz. the throne of David. which men had refused him. 
in taking his own throne he delivers up or surrenders 
his co-ordinate relation and becomes sub-ovdiuaXe, 



16 



THE TWO THRONES. 



or, is, henceforth, and forever. " subject unto him 
that put all things under him/ 7 to the end "that God 
may be all in all, 7 ' as Christ had been while he sat 
upon his Father's throne. This, with present light, 
we believe to be the true interpretation of this por- 
tion of scripture. a The end," we think, is no other 
than the end of the present age, and the co-ordinate 
rule of Christ on his Father's throne. The resur- 
rection of the righteous, or of Christ, and they that 
are Christ's at his coming, is the main topic of 

I Corth. 15; and we go not to that chapter to prove 
the resurrection of any others * though possibly the 
resurrection of all men is referred to in verses 22 and 
23, but not dwelt upon ; and the resurrection oi 
" every man in his own band, 77 or company, we 
may remark upon at another time, 

5. There is one more text we shall just notice 
under this general head, which goes to show when 
Christ takes his own throne. It is Mat. 25 : 31 — 
" When the son of man shall come in his glory, and 
all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon 
the throne of his glory. 77 It is not till his return in 
glory that he receives actual possession of his own 
throne r then he will occupy it ; and implies the re- 
linquishment of that previously occupied. The 
view we have taken of the kingdom delivered up to 
the Father, and the time when it is delivered up, 
is further confirmed from the fact that, 

The Kingdom and Throne of Christ are Eternal. 

His own proper kingdom is never to be surrendered 
or delivered up. He takes the subordinate relation 
to his Father on receiving his own throne ; and the 
kingdom of God is resumed by the Father at the 
same time that His Christ takes possession of his 
own kingdom. Hence 

1. At the sounding of the seventh trumpet, Rev, 

II : 15 } "great voices are heard in heaven,, saying. 



KINGD03I AND THE ONE OF CHRIST ETERNAL. 17 

The kingdoms of this world are become of our Lord. 
and of his anointed — his Christ: and he [the Christ] 
shall reign for ever and ever." The kingdom, or 
throne, on earth, then possessed by the anointed — 
the Christ — is eternal ; no delivering it up ; but at 
the same time, the elders are heard saying " We 
give thee thanks. 0 Lord God Almighty * * * be- 
cause thou hast taken [or assumed, as the ori- 
ginal also signifies] to thee thy great power and 
hast reigned.*'' God Almighty assumes again to 
himself the " all power in heaven and in earth* 1 
with which he invested Jesus when he set him at 
his right hand, and which Christ now delivers up 
to take his subordinate throne in the companionship 
of his people. Thus '-'the kingdom of God comes/"' 
or returns to himself in all its strength and glory, 
at the same time that the kingdom of Christ comes, 
and his undisturbed rule on his own throne, and 
over all nations. 

2. The seventh chapter of Daniel is equally clear 
as to the reign of Christ on his own throne, with 
his associates, being endless. They shall " possess 
the kingdom forever, even forever and ever 
verse 18. Again, verse 27. -'And the kingdom and 
dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under 
the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of 
the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an 
everlasting kingdom, and ail dominions shall serve 
and obey him."* Here the same truth is re-affirmed 
of the endless reign of the saints — holy ones — of 
whom Christ is the head. 

3. Once more, Heb. 1 : 9 affirms the same 
truth — Unto the' Son he saith, Thy Throne, 0 
God. is forever and ever."' This is a quotation 
fromPsa. 45: 6, 7,— "Thy throne, 0, God, is for 
ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right 
sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest 
wickedness : therefore God. thy God. hath anointed 



18 



THE TWO THRONES. 



thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.' 
These texts must suffice in proof that it is not the 
proper throne of Christ, or his kingdom, that is to 
be delivered up: for that throne and kingdom is set- 
tled endlessly on Christ and his associates. 

Christ's Throne Shared with his Followers. 

What a thought is this ! It is indeed overwhelm- 
ing ! What ! worms of the dust, who have sinned 
against God, and who are deserving of death, be 
raised to the high honor of sitting with Christ upon 
his throne ! Such an exaltation who shall dare aspire 
to ! And who would dare believe it possible if he ? 
who is " the truth/ 7 as well as "the way and the 
life/"' had not promised it ! If we can believe this, 
we surely need not stagger at any thing God or his 
Son have spoken ! But is it so % Let us see. 

1 . Our text positively affirms it: or rather Christ 
now on his Father's throne, and speaking with that 
authority with which he is there invested, promises 
£: To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with 
me in my throne, even as I overcame and am set 
down with my Father in his throne." If we had 
no other testimony, this must be sufficient to settle 
the question. But we are not left to this alone : 

2. Daniel 7 : 27 confirms the same truth, as we 
have already seen. But 

3. Paul clearly asserts this '2d Timothy 2 : 10— 
12 — " Therefore I endure all things for the elect's 
sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which 
is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. It is a faithful 
saying : for if we be dead with him, we shall also 
live with him : If we suffer, we shall also reign with 
him." 

4. Our Lord said to his disciples, Luke 12 : 32, 
a Fear not little flock, for it is your Father's good 
pleasure to give you the kingdom." 

5. Again our Lord said to his followers, Luke 



PARTNERS OF CHRIST'S THROXE. 19 



22 : 28 — 30 r " Ye are they which have continued 
with me in my temptations: and I appoint unto you 
a kingdom, as my father hath appointed unto me ; 
that ye may eat and drink at my table in my 
kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve 
tribes of Israel. 77 This language is clear and 
explicit, at least, so far as his disciples are con- 
cerned. 

6. Paul gives us his view of all the sons of God, 
Rom. 8 : 14 — 17, " For as many as are led by the 
Spirit of God, they are the sons of God : and if 
children, then heirs : heirs of God. and joint-heirs 
with Christ ; if so be that we suffer with him, that 
we may be also glorified together.' 7 

7. Finally, Jesus when he sits "upon the throne 
of his glory, 7 Mat. 25 : 31, says to his friends, verse 
37, " Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the 
kingdom, 77 &c. Surely, to inherit means something 
more than merely being subjects— it can signify 
nothing less than partnership in the throne and 
government of the kingdom. Let it be remembered 
that this honor is 

" To Him that overcometh. 77 

It is not then to the indolent, the thoughtless, the 
worldly minded : it is not to those who wait to be 
dragged along. It is to him who marches to the 
conflict in the spirit of self-sacrifice such as character- 
ized our Lord in his conflicts, and in which he over 
came. 

To help us to achieve this victory, and be over- 
comers, the first act of Christ, after his exaltation to 
his Fathers throne, was to send the Holy Spirit on 
nis followers, and to give it ever after to all " them 
that obey him. 77 He told his followers, while here 
on earth, John 16 : 7 — c '-l tell you the truth : It is 
expedient for you that I go away ; for if I go not 
away, the Comforter will not come unto you: but if 



20 



THE TWO THRONES, 



I depart. I will send him unto you.'- Not unmind- 
ful of his promise, after he was exalted he shed down 
the Holy Spirit according to his word : see Acts 2 : 
1—4, 32 3 33— 'This Jesus hath God raised up. 
whereof we are witnesses. Therefore being by the 
right hand of God exalted, and having received of 
the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath 
shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.'- The 
gift of the Spirit is not confined to those who are 
of one class, but is the blessing promised to all who 
obey Christ : and it is a gift without which we 
never can "overcome." It would be easy to enlarge 
on this point ; and to show that this promise is not 
restricted / but is a blessing to be expected and sought 
for by all who would sit down on Christ's throne, oi 
who would ever achieve the victory which shall en- 
title them to that exaltation. Surely the encourage- 
ment to go forward in the struggle for victory is 
abundant : and the help offered ample. The cer- 
tainty of a seat on Christ's throne, if we overcome, 
shouid be enough to arouse every soul, and to uvsie 
us on in the christian course without fainting. Tc 
do so, however, we must have in exercise that faith 
which keeps the high honor before our minds, and 
which never lets us lose sight of the throne of 
Christ's glory presented for our consideration and 
our inheritance. Let all earth's allurements — the 
suggestions of the flesh — and the temptations of the 
wicked one, disappear in our minds before the im- 
mortal prize which Jesus, our Lord, holds up to the 
eyes of our faith : thus " looking unto Jesus, the 
author and finisher of our faith; who," while on 
earth, " for the joy that was set before him endured 
the cross ; despising the shame, and is set down at the 
right hand of the throne of God," we shall be able 
always to triumph in Christ, through the word of 
truth and the power of the Holy Spirit : and :i in 
due time we shall reap, if we faint not." 



mm mmm ®f mfe. 

BY GEO. STORKS. 

Texts. — For as the Father hath life in himself, so 
hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. 
He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath 
not the Son of God, hath not life. And so it is 
written, the first man Adam was made a living 
soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 
Howbeit, that was not first which is spiritual, but 
that which is natural; and afterward that which 
is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, ear- 
thy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As 
is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; 
and as is the heavenly, such are they also that 
are heavenly. And as we have borne the image 
of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the 
heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh 
and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nei- 
ther doth corruption inherit incorruption. — John 
5: 26; 1 John 5: 12; and 1 Corinth. 15: 45-50. 

The following points present themselves from these 
portions of Scripture, viz: Unoriginated, Indepen- 
dent and Endless Life resides in God the Father 
alone. — By the gift of the Father, Endless Life re- 
sides in Christ. — Adam had not in himself, nor have 
any of his posterity by generation, or birth, endless 
life. — Endless life, for man, is in Christ alone. — This 
life can only be perfected by a resurrection or trans- 
lation. 

I. Unoriginated, Independent Endless Life re- 
sides in God the Father alone. Such life must 

1 



2 



THE TRUE SOURCE OF LIFE. 



be located somewhere. In the nature of the case we 
can go no higher to find its source. God appeals to 
this attribute on solemn occasions, or to confirm his 
word. ' 'Truly as Hive, all the earth shall be filled 
with the glory of the Lord." Numb. 14: 21. "Say 
unto them as I live, saith the Lord God, I have no 
pleasure in the death of the wicked," &e. Here then 
we have the highest source of life appealed to; and 
of necessity it must be unoriginated and indepen- 
ient, 

II. By the Gitt of the Father, Endless Life 
besides in Christ. 

This, the first text affirms, "As the Father hath 
life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have 
life in himself." "It pleased the Father that in him 
should all fulness dwell:" Col. 1: 19. This fulness 
of life was not complete till his resurrection: then 
"death hath no more dominion over him:" Horn. 6: 
9. "Whom God hath raised up, [from the dead] 
having loosed the pains of death, because it was not 
possible that he should be holden of it:" Acts 2: 24. 
The anointed Jesus was begotten, or generated of 
Mary by the Holy Spirit of God; and by the same 
Spirit was he "the first born from the dead:" Col. 
1: 18, and 1 Pet. 8: 18; and now "ever liveth," and 
hath "the power of an Endless Life." Heb. 7: 16. 

III. Adah had not in Himself, nob hate any of 
his Posterity, by generation, Endless Life. 

The threatening of death is proof of this point. To 
threaten a being with death who had endless life; or, 
which is the same thing, had immortality, would 
show a lack of wisdom which we dare not attribute 
to the Lord our God. 



THE TRUE SOURCE OF LIFE. 



3 



Exclusion from the tree of life "lest man should 
take and eat thereof and live forever" is proof posi- 
tive that he had not endless life in himself. On this 
point we have the plain and positive testimony of 
Paul that our proposition is true. We will now ex- 
amine that testimony as presented in 1 Corth. 15: 
45 to 50. In the 44th verse he says, "There is a 
natural" — psuchikon — an animal "body," or person; 
so the term "body" often signifies: and in that sense 
this apostle uses it in other places. Chap. 5: 3, 
he says, "I verily as absent in body," &c, that is, 
personally absent. Again Heb. 10: 10, he says: "We 
are sanctified through the offering of the body of Je- 
sus Christ once for all." Surely our Saviour offered 
something more than merely a body; for he "poured 
out his soul to death" — he "gave himself for our 
sins." Gal. 1: 4. To return. The apostle affirms 
there is an animal person, and there is a spiritual 
body, or person. And that he is speaking of the en- 
tire person, and not of the body merely, is evident 
from the following part of his argument; for he adds, 
"And so it is written, the first man Adam was made 
a living soul." Here is the proof that there is a nat- 
ural body, or animal person. He appeals "to the law 
and the testimony," and that records that the first 
man was made an animal man — a living person: not 
an immortal soul — he says no such thing — that would 
have destroyed his argument, which is to prove the 
first man, or Adam, was liable to corruption. The 
phrase "living soul," which Paul quotes direct from 
Genesis 2: 7, never can prove that man had an im- 
mortal soul, any more than the same language can 
prove that all the fowls, fishes, cattle and creeping 



4 



THE TRUE SOURCE OF LIFE. 



things have such souls; for the same is said of them, 
Gen. 1: 20 and 30, as is said of man chap, 2: 7. The 
original in each of the three cases is nephesh hay ah — 
living soul; which expression puts the fishes, fowls, 
cattle and creeping things and man all on a level as 
to any natural immortality: one was just as much so 
as the other, and no more, in himself. The apostle's 
appeal, therefore, to this account of man's creation, 
shows that he regarded man, of himself, by creation, 
as a mere animal man; and this he positively asserts 
in what follows: for he proceeds to say, 4 'That was 
not first which is spiritual, but that which is natu- 
ral," or animal. Here the apostle does clearly affirm 
that the first man Adam was not spiritual, but that 
he was an animal. Surely here is no indication of 
an immortal soul or a spiritual nature, as some main- 
tain, but the reverse. Here we are perfectly aware 
immortal soulists will be filled with horror, and cry 
out — "What! man a mere animal?" Yes, gentle- 
men, you who would-be- "gods," hear it; you are by 
virtue of your descent from Adam but mere animals; 
though the "father of lies" has tried ever since he 
tempted mother Eve to make men think they are 
gods — or are immortal. "Ye shall not surely die" 
has ever been his motto: but Paul declares they are 
natural persons — animal men; and he affirms that to 
be the testimony of God by Moses. But let us hear 
him further. "The first man is of the earth, earthy." 
Surely this is a fatal blow to those proud hearts who 
talk of their "spiritual, and immortal nature." Hold] 
says Paul, "the first man is of the earth, earthy," 
and "as is the earthy," [natural, or animal'] "such 
are they also that are earthy:" or such as have their 



THE TRUE SOURCE OF LIFE. 



5 



descent from Adam. As a stream naturally can rise 
no higher than the fountain, so all born of Adam, the 
first man, are of earthly origin, or are only animals, 
tending hack to the earth again like all other ani- 
mals. A mortifying reflection, truly: and proud 
man, fancying himself a god, and claiming that he 
has a soul that is a < 'simple essence, uncompounded, 
immaterial, indestructible, and immortal," will of 
course make war on the apostle just so soon as he 
sees clearly the drift of his argument. It is truly 
humiliating, after one has taken the seat of God, 
and claimed affinity to him in immortality, to be made 
to know that all this self-exaltation is from the fa- 
ther of lies; and that man is by creation, or genera- 
tion, only an animal, and destitute of a spiritual na- 
ture — that at best he is only the highest order of 
animals, with a capacity for the development of mo- 
ral qualities and the reception of a spiritual nature 
through another medium, which we shall soon con- 
sider. The animal man, though his intellect may 
be developed so as to soar among the stars and tell 
their magnitude and revolutions, and to search out 
the secret things hidden in the depths of the earth, 
yet is after all but an animal, and will * 'perish for- 
ever like his own dung," [see Job 20: 7,] unless he 
comes to another source than himself for immor- 
tality; for, adds the apostle, "flesh and blood" [i. e. 
man by natural descent] "cannot inherit the king- 
dom of God;" and for this plain reason — that king- 
dom is everlasting, and man by creation or genera- 
tion has no principle of perpetual existence in him, 
and hence must gain it from some other source or 
cease to be in the universe of God like any other 
mere animal. 



5 THE TRUE SOURCE OF LIFE. 

To tins may be added the fact that man's domin- 
ion was over the animals; which imports, that at his 
creation he was himself an animal, only of the high- 
est order; otherwise there seems an inappropriate- 
ness in the language of scripture and in the design 
expressed in creation. "God said let ns make man 
* * * and let them have dominion over the fish 
of the sea. and over the fowl of the air, and over the 
cattle, and over all the earth, and oyer every creep- 
ing thing that creepeth upon the earth: " Gen. 1: 26: 
Compare this with Ps. 8: 4-8: "TYhat is man, that 
thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that 
thou Tisitest him? For thou hast made him a little 
lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with 
with glory and honor. Thou madest him to have 
dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put 
all things under his feet. All sheep and oxen, yea, 
and the beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, and 
the fish of the sea, and and whatsoever passeth 
through the paths of the sea." All goes to show 
that man was in his proper sphere as ruler over other 
animals: and that was his standing till such times as 
further developments could be made of him, or some 
other qualities should be added by trial, or other- 
wise, which should fit him for a higher sphere than 
that of a mere animal. 

Further, that man was a mere animal, though of 
the highest order, and capable of developments 
which the subjected animals were not, is evident 
from his trial. That was the trial of an animal — it 
related to food — to eating. He was placed in Eden, 
and bid regale himself, or gratify his nature, by 
eating freely of all the fruits of the garden save one. 



THE TRUE SOURCE OF LIFE. 



7 



Of that one lie .was not to eat; that prohibition re- 
lated to him as an animal, and was evidently de- 
signed to bring out in man, or produce in him, a 
quality which he had not by creation, because such a 
quality cannot be created — it is not an entity, nor 
anything that can be created; it is an attribute, and 
must be induced by some cause whereby there is 
trial. Man, at his creation, was capable of no higher 
trial than that of an animal; so the test was, to eat, 
or not to eat: that was the test, and such as was suited 
to man as one put in dominion oyer other animals . 
By this test, if obedient, he might advance in the 
scale of being, and approach to the development of a 
spiritual nature, which previously he had not. In 
the trial he failed, and fell under complete subjec- 
tion to the animal nature with which he was created; 
and God provided another medium to bring out a 
spiritual nature, or spiritual man: that is, He pro- 
vided a "second Adam," whose origin was not of the 
dust of the ground, but heavenly; though united to 
and become one with 4 'flesh and blood;" for "the 
Word — Logos — was made flesh and dwelt among us;" 
or, because those to be delivered "are partakers of 
flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of 
the same:" thus taking hold on our animal nature, 
that we by taking hold on his spiritual nature, by 
faith, might have developed in us a spiritual nature 
and thus attain unto holiness, immortality, endless 
life. This leads us to say — 

IV. Endless Life, foe, Max, is in Christ alone. 

Thus John speaks in our text, 1 John 5: 12, "He 
that hath the Son hath life, he that hath not the 
Son of God, hath not life" In the previous verse he 



8 



THE TRUE SOURCE OF LIFE. 



affirms this is the record, [that we are called to "be- 
lieve," viz:] "that God hath given unto us eternal 
life, and this life is in his Son:" and he declares that 
the rejection of this record is to make "God a liar." 
Yet, alas! how many professed Christians, even— 
ignorantly we hope — do deny, in fact, the truth of 
this record, and claim that they have endless life, or, 
which is the same, immortality without regard to 
Christ. 

Let us now examine the apostle's argument as to 
how the spiritual man is produced. He informs us 
it is by the second Adam. "The last Adam," says 
he, "was made a quickening spirit" — or life-giving 
spirit. "That was not first which is spiritual, but 
that which is natural," or animal; "and afterward 
that which is spiritual:" * * "the second man 
is the Lord from heaven," or of heavenly origin. As 
the first was from the earth, earthy — a mere animal, 
and not spiritual: so the second is from heaven, be- 
gotten by the Spirit of God; so that in him dwelt di- 
vine or spiritual life, the principle and source of im- 
mortality and endless life. Now we begin to see the 
need we have of Christ; and the value of him to a 
perishing world. Whatever intellectual or, so-called, 
"moral" qualities may be manifested by any de- 
scendant of Adam the first, there is no approach to 
a spiritual nature, nor to immortality and endless 
life, till a union is formed with the second Adam, 
who is of heavenly origin: out of Christ there is no- 
thing but corruption and death — extinction of all 
sense and consciousness, or to perish like the beasts: 
but in Christ is life and immortality. Refuse and 
reject him, you perish, utterly, totally, and forever 



THE TRUE SOURCE OF LIFE. 



9 



Come to liim — be united to him as the branch to the 
vine — live upon him by faith, and you are a "new 
creature" — a "spiritual nature" is developed — the 
man is born of the Spirit; and now has spiritual 
senses, which he had not before: he now sees spir- 
itual objects: knows and loves God, which he did not 
before, however much his intellect might have been 
convinced there is a God. "The natural"— psuchikos 
— the animal "man receiveth not the things of the 
Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: 
neither can he know them, because they are spiritually 
discerned;" and that discernment he has not, and can- 
not have till he has a spiritual nature imparted, which 
can only be done by a union with Christ, the second 
Adam, and head of the spiritual creation. Hence, 
the first thing required by the gospel is faith in 
Christ, in order to the new birth, and the develop- 
ment of spiritual senses. The highest attainments 
in what are denominated moral qualities cannot pro- 
duce this developement; nor bring a soul of man out 
of his mere animal condition, or save him from per- 
ishing, unless he is united to the fountain of endless 
life that God has opened in his Son. A union with 
Christ or endless death must be the portion of all 
that proceed from Adam who was of the earth, earthy. 
United to Christ, and abiding in him, as the branch 
abides in the vine, we shall not only have a spiritual 
nature — or be "partakers of the divine nature" — 
but our "vile body" will ultimately be "changed;" 
for, "as we have borne the image of the earthy, we 
shall also bear the image of the heavenly," saith 
Paul. "TTe" — Who? All men? No. AYho then 
does Paul mean by "WeV He tells us verse 50, 



10 



THE TRUE SOURCE OF LIFE. 



"brethren," and verse 58, "my beloved brethren." 
This leads us to say — 

Y. This Endless Life can only be perfected 
by a Resurrection or Translation. 

The apostle had clearly stated this fact in the pre- 
vious part of this chapter, when he said, "If the dead 
rise not, then is not Christ raised; and, of course, 
there is no fountain of endless life; and "'then they 
also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished 
All future life turns on the reality of the resurrec- 
tion. Without that all are lost — all are perished 
who have died; and "we who have hope in Christ 
are of all men most miserable;" because, now we 
suffer, and deny ourselves such pleasures as mere 
animal men delight in; and doing all this in hope 
of a future and endless life, *we are losers if 
there is no resurrection of the dead. Yes, saith the 
apostle, "if the dead rise not, let us eat and drink" 
enjoy ourselves as animals — "for to-morrow we die," 
and that ends all our hope. But he affirms the dead 
will rise, and the living in Christ be changed. "Be- 
hold, I show you a mystery" — a secret — "We shall 
not all sleep" — or die — "but we shall all be changed, 
in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last 
trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead 
shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be 
changed." "We." Who? All men? No. The 
apostle has clearly distinguished between those of 
whom he speaks and other men, verse 19, "If in this 
life only we have hope in Christ we are of all men 
most miserable." Thus we see the apostle means 
by "we" a specific class of men, viz: those "in 
Christ" — or those who by "faith" are united to 



THE TRUE SOURCE OF LIFE. 



11 



Christ. Such, if dead, will be raised incorruptible; 
or, if living, mil be changed to incorruption: "for 
he adds, "this corruptible must put on incorruption, 
and this mortal must put on immortality." This is 
the only way immortality is to be received, or that 
endless life can be perfected; and "so," the apostle 
continues, "when this corruptible shall have put on 
incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on im- 
mortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying 
that is written, Death is swallowed up of victory." 
Then is the work perfected, and eternal life is en- 
tered upon; for they cannot "die any more," but are 
glorified in their head, "Christ, who is our life." 

Inferences. 1. Out of Christ men will utterly 
perish, like the beasts. Having no higher nature 
than that derived from the first Adam, they are of 
the earth, earthy — not heavenly — not spiritual — not 
immortal — no endless life. 

2. Those who do have victory over death — who are 
delivered from its sting and from its victory — attain 
this triumph "through our Lord Jesus Christ;" and 
give "thanks to God, which giveth us the victory." 

3. We who have believed in Christ, and have hope 
towards God for such a deliverance and salvation, 
have abundant cause to be steadfast and immovea- 
ble, always abounding in the work of the Lord, for- 
asmuch as we know our labor is not in vain in the 
Lord: "the end is life eternal" to all such as "have 
their fruit unto holiness." Let us endure as seeing 
him who is is invisible, for "we shall reap in due 
time, if we faint not." 



THE TRUE SOURCE OF LIFE 



Hark! — what friendly voice is that I near? 

Enduring accents! 'Tis the theme of Love! 

What kind appeals — -what admonitions too! 

How well designed, to search and prove the heart 

Our fair exterior — will nought avail: 

Love makes the heart its residence, and moves 

Our deepest sympathies for others' woes — 

Visits the widow and the fatherless — 

Extends to the afilicted kind relief. 

The poor, the outcast, the despised, oppressed, 

Hardly can fail in such to meet a friend: 

Governed by principles which love inspires — 

Our joy will be in making others bles't. 

Doeth selfish ends — our private actions sway. 

Look deep vritkin! if we love God, we love 

Our Brother too — renouncing self: if not — 

Vain are our gifts, our knowledge, faith or hope! 

Empty'dof self — with love imbued — how sweet, 

To do and say — as Jesus did and taught; 

His sojourn here hath mark'd the path in which 

He fain would have us go — tracing his steps; 

In all our words and actions prove our love 

Sincere, made pure and like our glorious Head. 

Behold! His day makes haste! 'tis at the door! 

Rejoice and be exceeding glad. He comes — 

Our elder brother — friend! and comes to reign. 

Taught by the signs he kindly gave — we know 

His day already hath begun to dawn: 

Expecting soon to hail the Prince of Peace, 

Rejoice in hope of everlasting life. 

And shall we shrink from duty? Shun the cross? 

Love will be active — bent on doing good! 

Such is the God-like character of Love: 

Oh ! that the spark might soon become a flame! 

PD - 331 



